Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Warwick Corporation Bill [Lords],

Read the Third time, and passed, with Amendments.

Wey Valley Water Bill [Lords],

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

London County Council (Money) Bill (by Order),

Third Reading deferred till Friday.

Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill [Lords] (by Order),

Second Reading deferred till Wednesday.

NEW WRIT.

For the County of Carmarthen (Carmarthen Division), in the room of the right hon. Sir Alfred Moritz Mond, baronet (Chiltern Hundreds).—(Commander Eyres Monsell.)

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

COMMUNIST PUBLICATIONS (PROHIBITION).

Mr. WELLOCK: 1.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India if he is yet in a position to say why a copy of a book entitled "The Politics of Oil," sent to India by a. London bookseller, was confiscated on its arrival in that country in March last?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Earl Winterton): This book was confiscated on arrival at Bombay as coming within the scope of the Notification issued under Section 19 of the Sea Customs Act. This Notification pro-
hibits the importation of publications issued by or emanating from any organisation affiliated to or controlled by or connected with the Communist International.

Mr. WELLOCK: This book has nothing whatever to do with Communism; it was published by the Labour Publishing Company, and was written at the instigation of the Labour Research Department.

Earl WINTERTON: The book was written by Mr. R. Page Arnott, of the Labour Research Department. I am informed that the author is a leading member of he Communist party in Great Britain, and he was convicted in this country in 1925 on a charge of conspiring with other persons to utter and publish seditious libels under the Incitement to Mutiny Act. He has been in Moscow for some time past working in close contact with the authorities there.

Mr. WELLOCK: Is the Noble Lord aware that this book has nothing whatever to do with Communism, and that it is one of a series of studies of labour and capital, and deals purely with oil in politics?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: If a member of the Communist party wrote a novel or a book of poetry, would he be debarred from carrying on his journalistic activity, and, if so, on what grounds, and how does the Government prohibit it?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is rather hypothetical.

Earl WINTERTON: As regards the question as to the conditions under which this book was published, I would call the hon. Gentleman's attention to the fact that it was published by the Labour Research Department, 162, Buckingham Palace Road. I am informed that this is an institution which is in close touch with the Communists, and is known to collaborate with the equivalent body in Moscow, which is under the control of the Central Council of the Trade Unions in Moscow.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the Noble Lord agree to read this publication himself, and ascertain whether it is of the kind which ought to be excluded from India?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; it is the source of the publication, and not the publication itself which was the cause of the Government of India deciding to exclude it.

Mr. SHINWELL: I asked whether the Noble Lord will agree to read it?

Earl WINTERTON: No, Sir; because it is a matter for the Government of India, who are in this matter acting within their full discretion, and with the full approval of my Noble Friend.

Mr. KELLY: Will the Noble Lord give us any information as to his authority for stating that this particular committee in Buckingham Palace Road is under the control of some committee in Moscow?

Earl WINTERTON: I have made inquiries to that effect—and I am not going to give my source of information—and so has the Government of India.

Commander WILLIAMS: Can the Noble Lord inform us where the extreme Socialist ends and the Communist begins?

Mr. THURTLE: Are we to understand that any book written by a Communist is to be forbidden entry into India?

Earl WINTERTON: The Government of India are acting in this matter exactly as the trade unions are acting in this country, and are doing their best to exclude Communist interference from outside sources with the internal affairs of India.

SHOOTING, CALCUTTA.

Mr. DAY: 2.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he has now received the full Report, together with the views of the Government of Bengal and the Government of India, regarding the firing on the railway strikers in Calcutta on the 28th March last; and, if so, whether he will give the House the particulars?

Earl WINTERTON: The Report itself has been received to-day, but not the views of the Government of Bengal and the Government of India. Until these have been received, I cannot make any statement.

Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord say when it is hoped to receive this Report from the Government of Bengal, so that a statement can be made on this subject?

Earl WINTERTON: It is difficult to give an approximate date, but I will inform the hon. Gentleman when I am in a position to answer this question, so that he can put another question down.

MAGISTRATE, LAHORE (CENSURE).

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: 3.
asked the Under-Secretary of state for India whether he is now able to state what action has been taken with regard to the magistrate censured by the chief justice of Lahore in his judgment delivered on 18th November, 1927?

Earl WINTERTON: I am still in the position indicated by my answer to the hon. Member's question of 23rd April, but will ascertain when a decision is likely to be reached.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE: In view of the grave strictures of the judge in this case, and the fact that nearly six months have elapsed, can the Noble Lord indicate when he will be in a position to give a definite answer?

Earl WINTERTON: The hon. Member will realise that more than one authority has to consider this matter; full consideration is being given to it, and I regret that I am unable to tell him even approximately when a decision will be reached.

STRIKE FUNDS (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Mr. PILCHER: 4.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether, and, if so, on what occasions during the past two years, the Indian Government has respectively tolerated and prevented' the delivery to Indian addressees of contributions from Moscow to the funds of Indian strikers?

Earl WINTERTON: I have no exact information, and would prefer not to make any statement until I am in possession of such information.

Mr. PILCHER: Has the Noble Lord's attention been drawn to a letter written by Mrs. Besant, no friendly critic of the Indian Government, to one of the Indian trade union leaders in receipt of Bolshevist money, to the effect that it should be returned, because
it is poured out to create riots and bloodshed in other lands, and disgraces anyone who touches it.

PRISONER'S RELEASE (K. C. BANERJEE).

Mr. THURTLE: 5.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to make any statement regarding the circumstances in which K. C. Banerjee, who had been sentenced to five years' rigorous imprisonment under the Arms Act, was released by the Punjab Government after serving some months of this term of imprisonment; whether he is aware that the Punjab Government has admitted that they had learned that this man had been connected with the criminal investigation department of the United Provinces; and that his release followed on the receipt of this information?

Earl WINTERTON: My Noble Friend has not yet received any report on this matter, but it was debated at some length in the Punjab Legislative Council on 10th May, and the debate has been reported in the Indian Press. When I receive the Official Report will send the hon. Member a copy. According to the Press report it is the case that Banerjee was released after serving two months of his sentence mainly in consideration of the fact that he had in the past given useful information to the United Provinces police and had assisted in the prevention and detection of crime.

Mr. THURTLE: In view of that statement, will the Noble Lord now reconsider the replies which he has given in this House to the effect that agents provocateurs are not employed by the Indian police?

Earl WINTERTON: No; the hon. Gentleman is reading into my answer something that does not exist. I never suggested that he was an agent provocateur, and there is not the slightest reason to suppose that he is. He was merely a gentleman who had given useful information to the police; and I would remind the hon. Member that it is the duty of all citizens in all civilised countries to give information to the police, if that information may be useful.

Mr. THURTLE: Is the Noble Lord aware that the Finance Member of the Punjab Government admitted that this man had been a paid agent of the police?

Earl WINTERTON: The report which I have seen in the newspapers did not
convey that impression. Sir Geoffrey de Montmorency, according to the report, said:
This informer belonged to the latter class"—
that is, those, as Sir Geoffrey had previously explained, who give really useful information leading to the detection and prevention of crime, and the protection of the public, and, as such, deserve consideration. Then, Sir Geoffrey went on to say:
and we, therefore, took a lenient view of his offence, but we did not take this view until we were thoroughly satisfied on the point.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Did not the fact come out in the same debate that his expenses were always paid by the police authoriti as, and is it not a fact that his expenses for travelling to Punjab were actually paid?

Earl WINTERTON: On that, I should prefer to await the full report of the debate, but I must inform the hon. Gentleman that I see nothing wrong in a citizen, who has given useful information to the police, being paid for his expenses in connection with the matter.

FILMS (CENSORSHIP).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 7.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether his attention has been called to the number of undesirable films still being exhibited in India; and whether he will make representations to the Government of India with a view to bringing about a is ore efficient censorship of films In that country?

Earl WINTERTON: The whole question of the production and exhibition of cinematograph films in India has recently been considered by a, Committee in India, appointed by the Governor-General in Council, one of whose terms of reference was to examine the principles and methods of the censorship of films, and to make recommendations. The Committee is expected to report shortly.

Mr. DAY: Can the Noble Lord say whether any British films have been censored there lately?

Earl WINTERTON: Obviously not without notice, but I will send the information to the hon. Member. There
are different methods in different provinces in India, and the whole question of censorship is being carefully considered by the Committee, and will afterwards receive the attention of the Government of India when the Committee report.

BRITISH MALAYA (TOWN PLANNING).

Lieut.-Colonel FREMANTLE: 8.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in view of the importance of town planning in British Malaya, owing to its present rapid economic development, he will say what steps are being taken to make use of the opportunities afforded by that development?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Amery): The Governments of British Malaya have given careful consideration to town planning and improvement in recent years. In the Federated Malay States the Government engaged a Government Town Planner in 1921, and have since established his Department on a permanent basis; legislative provision has been made for the preparation and enforcement of tows plans in suitable areas, and legislation dealing with improvement schemes is in preparation. In the Straits Settlements the Singapore Improvement Ordinance, passed last year, set up a Board of Trustees to prepare and carry out improvement schemes in Singapore Island.

Lieuf.-Colonel FREMANTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman convinced that the administration is strong enough to be able to carry out the legislation which is intended.

Mr. AMERY: Oh, I think so.

IRAQ (FRONTIER ATTACKS).

Mr. DAY: 10.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received any further reports of attacks carried out by Persian tribes on the Iraq-Persian frontier in Amara and, if so, whether he will give particulars; and can he state whether the Commission of Inquiry which has been sent to Amara to investigate the circumstances of the trouble has made a Report?

Mr. AMERY: I have not been able to identify any events to which the hon. Member's question could refer.

PALESTINE (PRISONERS).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 11.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has received information that several persons have recently been accused in Palestine of membership of an illegal association and have been sentenced to deportation; whether he is aware that these persons asked that they should be treated as political offenders; that they went on hunger strike and are still on hunger strike, and that three of them were flogged; whether flogging and deportation of political offenders are forms of punishment authorised by the Criminal Court of Palestine; and whether he has any information to communicate to the House on the subject?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir, I have received no information of the kind. If the hon. and gallant Member will furnish me with more precise details, I will consider the desirability of making inquiry into his allegations?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: May I ask, in the meantime, whether flogging is one of the punishments in the civil code of Palestine, particularly for political offences?

Mr. AMERY: I am not aware that it is a punishment for a political offence—if it exists at all; but if the hon. and gallant Member will provide me with some clue to what he is referring, I will have inquiries made.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman inquire into the allegations, contained in a telegram sent to the Labour party, that these men after they had gone on hunger strike were flogged; and if that proves to be so, will he take immediate action?

Mr. AMERY: I will make inquiries.

CYPRUS (AGRICULTURAL SCHOOL, NICOSIA).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 12.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the agricultural school at Nicosia, Cyprus, has been enlarged?

Mr. AMERY: I have not yet received a reply to the inquiry on this subject which I addressed to the Governor as a result of my hon. Friend's question of the 30th April. I have, however, reminded him by telegraph, and hope to be able to let my hon. Friend have the desired information at a very early date.

Mr. COUPER: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many students attend this school, and what are the nationalities?

Mr. AMERY: I think I should have notice of that question.

ZAMBESI RIVER (BRIDGE).

Mr. RAMSDEN: 13.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is now in a position to make a statement with regard to the construction of a bridge over the Zambesi river?

Mr. AMERY: I am unable to add anything to the reply given, to the question asked by my hon. Friend on the 30th April.

Mr. RAMSDEN: May I ask when the right hon. Gentleman hopes to be able to give that information?

Mr. AMERY: I hope to get it as soon as possible.

GOLD COAST (IMPORTED SPIRITS).

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: 14.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the gin imported into the told Coast, West Africa, is classified as trade spirits because it is of a kind not generally consumed by Europeans; and, if so, will he state the total number of gallons of spirits so imported in the last convenient period and the percentage of gin included in the total?

Mr. AMERY: No, Sir. The importation of "trade spirits" has been prohibited since 1919 in the Gold Coast, and no gin which is classed as trade spirits is allowed to enter. In 1925 and 1926 the total importation of spirits was 943,487 and 805,642 gallons respectively, of which 91.1 and 91.3 per cent. was gin. The total importation in 1927 was 1,295,712 gallons, but I have not yet received detailed figures of each kind of liquor.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this gin is drunk only by Europeans and not by natives?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know how far some liquor is consumed by natives, but the point is that since 1919 trade spirits have been excluded.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we not under an obligation to prevent any gin getting into the hands of the natives?

SOLOMON ISLANDS (LATE CADET LILLIES).

Mr. E. BROWN: 15.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies why a letter was written and signed by the Assistant, Under-Secretary of his Department to a relative of the late Mr. Lillies, one of the murdered officers in the Solomon Islands, to the effect that one of the natives arrested in connection with the outrages at Sinarango has stated that he had Keen asked on several occasions by a brother of a man executed at Tulagi to kill Government officials in Malaita at the first opportunity; and why the letter stated that this would be in accordance with native customs?

Mr. AMERY: The Colonial Office had been repeatedly pressed by the relative for fuller information as to the outrage, and the letter in question was one of a series of letters in that connection. The letter communicated the substance of a telegram from the Resident Commissioner of the Protectorate, and the allusion in that telegram to native custom was to the practice, not uncommon among primitive peoples, of seeking a life for a life.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: 23.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs the date on which the effects of the late Cadet Lillies arrived in this country from the Solomon Islands, and the date on which these effects were handed over to his next-of-kin.

Mr. AMERY: The effects were received in the Office of the Crown Agents for the Colonies on the 1Ith May, and were delivered to Mr. Chudleigh on the 30th May.

Lieut.-Colonel JAMES: Was there any reason for this very long delay?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know what the reason for the delay was.

KOWEIT (BRITISH FORCES).

Mr. L'ESTRANGE MALONE: 16.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will inform the House as to the present situation at Koweit; for what purpose Koweit has been occupied; whether the occupation will be temporary or permanent; of what units the British occupying force is composed; whether any Indian troops have been sent from Iraq for the occupation of Koweit; and whether the occupying force has suffered any casualties?

Mr. AMERY: The present situation in Koweit is normal. As regards the second and third parts of the question, I explained, in reply to a question by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) on the 19th April last, the circumstances in which certain British detachments were sent temporarily to Koweit to assist the Sheikh. All these detachments have now been withdrawn. The answer to both the 5th and the 6th parts of the question is in the negative.

DEAD SEA SALTS (CONCESSION).

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 17.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, with regard to the Dead Sea concession, the concessionnaires are to be left free to obtain and make use of any labour of any nationality, or are they to he restricted to any one nationality?

Mr. AMERY: I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the replies given to him on the 30th November and 5th December last and to the reply given to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Bath (Captain Foxcroft) an the 7th December, to the effect that the provisions to be inserted in the concession could not be made public before the concession is granted. I can assure him that the point which he raises has not been overlooked.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can the right hon. Gentleman contradict the statement, which has been widely made,
that only Jewish labour is allowed to be employed by the concessionnaires on these contracts, without regard to the fact that in Palestine the majority of the people are Arabs?

Mr. AMERY: I have not heard that rumour, and I have no reason to believe that such a provision is in contemplation.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will this House be taken into consultation before the terms of the concession are decided on?

Mr. AMERY: When the terms of the concession are definitely agreed, it will be open to the House to take it into consideration before final action is taken.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL: 18.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the capital offered by the group said to form the financial backing of Mr. Novomeysky is considered to be enough for the complete development of the Dead Sea products to the stage of an estabished commercial industry or whether it is an amount sufficient only for an initial experimental stage?

Mr. AMERY: I am advised that the present financial supporters of Messrs. Tulloch and Novomeysky command the capital necessary for the development of the undertaking for several years after it has commenced production on a commercial scale. If the undertaking proves a success further capital may doubtless be required.

Sir F. HALL: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied in his own mind that these two concessionnaires, as they practically are, are not going round the City of London asking for financial assistance and that they have got the actual financial backing, such as it is known the group of British capitalists who offered to undertake this business possess?

Mr. AMERY: I think I have explained before that these concessionnaires were approved as of sufficient financial stability, but we are going further into the matter with them. The whole matter is still under discussion and the Crown Agents are negotiating with them.

Sir F. HALL: May I take it, as the right hon. Gentleman uses the word
"concessionnaires," that he agrees that the concession has been practically given to these two persons?

Mr. AMERY: No. I have explained before that the matter was put up to tender and the most favourable tender was accepted, subject to the fulfilment of a number of conditions which are still under discussion. If those conditions are not fulfilled, the matter lapses and the whole field is open again; if, on the other hand, the conditions are satisfied, then these two gentlemen have a prior claim.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that they have sufficient backing?

Mr. SPEAKER: That question is only a repetition.

IRISH FREE STATE (EX-BRITISH CIVIL SERVANTS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: 19.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he can now state if it is still the intention of the Government to introduce legislation to set aside the judgment of the Privy Council in favour of ex-British civil servants in the Irish Free State, as decided in Wigg and Cochrane v. the Attorney-General of the Irish Free State, in May last year; if so, when will such legislation be introduced and what compensation will be paid to the civil servants in question for the delay in paying them the pensions and other compensation to which they have been held to be entitled more than a year ago?

Mr. AMERY: I hope that it will be possible for a statement to be made on this matter at an early date; in the meantime I am afraid I cannot add anything to the previous replies which I have given to my hon. Friend.

Sir W. DAVISON: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise the great hardship these ex-British civil servants are suffering by reason of the fact that they have got no result from the judgment they obtained a year ago, and does he not think they are entitled to some compensation immediately?

Mr. AMERY: I am anxious to see a settlement as speedily as possible.

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of that anxiety, can the right hon. Gentleman
say that the matter will be settled at a given date, or will it be that Parliament will have adjourned leaving the matter still unsettled?

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: 24.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether, as a result of the WiggCochrane judgment, he can now say if negotiations or conversations are taking place with the Government of the Irish Free State with a view to removing the deadlock in carrying out the provisions of Clause 19 of the Treaty; and whether the position of British ex service temporary clerks transferred to the Irish Free State Government is also the subject of these negotiations in view of their undoubted grievances against both Governments?

Mr. AMERY: The answer to the first part of my hon. and gallant Friend's question is in the affirmative. As regards the second part the matters under discussion relate to the general position as regards claims for compensation under Article X of the Articles of Agreement, and not specially to the claims of particular classes of civil servants.

Colonel HOWARD-BURY: Can my right hon. Friend say whether these British ex-service temporary clerks come under these terms?

Mr. AMERY: I am afraid it would hardly be for me to make a ruling as to whether they come under those terms, and it is only when the machinery for dealing with those cases is set up that their claims can very well be considered.

MISSION TO AUSTRALIA.

Mr. GOUPER: 20.
asked the Secretary of State For Dominion Affairs whether any change has been made in the personnel of the. Commission to Australia; and, if so, whether he is in a position to give the name or names of those appointed to fill the vacancies?

Mr. AMERY: Yes, Sir. I am glad to say that Sir Arthur Duckham, K.C.B., has undertaken to serve as head of the mission to Australia. Owing to unforeseen circumstances Sir Harry McGowan will unfortunately be unable to accompany the mission.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

EMPIRE TOBACCO.

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: 21.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs what action has been taken by the Empire Marketing Board to popularise the consumption of Empire-grown tobacco?

Mr. AMERY: As I explained to my hon. Friend the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) on the 6th June, the Empire Marketing Board are at present awaiting the forthcoming report of the Imperial Economic Committee on Tobacco before deciding what steps they can best take to popularise Empire-grown tobacco in the United Kingdom. In the meantime they have drawn attention to Empire tobacco both on their poster frames and in their press advertisements, while exhibits of Empire-grown tobacco have been shown by various Dominions and Colonies in the spaces provided for them by the Board at a number of exhibitions.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Can the right hon. Gentleman now tell me that at the reception given by his officers only Empire tobacco is offered to the guests?

Mr. AMERY: I do not know the reception to which the hon. and gallant Member refers, but, whenever I receive, I will certainly offer nothing but Empire tobacco.

Sir F. HALL: Is there going to be a general distribution or is that offer applicable only to one or two hon. Members below the gangway?

BRITISH MANUFACTURES (EXPORTS).

Sir JOHN POWER: 40.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the value of British manufactures exported to Empire countries and foreign countries, respectively, in 1927?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Herbert Williams): The value of the "Articles wholly or mainly manufactured" exported in 1927 from the United Kingdom, which were consigned to Empire countries was £275,600,000, and the value of such goods consigned to foreign countries was £288,300,000. Manufactured food and drink, and manufactured toba000, are not included in these totals.

MERCHANDISE MARKS ACT (CONVICTIONS).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 41.
asked the President of the Board of Trade if he can now state how many convictions were registered in Great Britain during 1927 under the Merchandise Marks Act, 1887; in how many cases were more than one member of a firm or company proceeded against; and in how many cases were more than one person convicted for the same offence?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir William Joynson-Hicks): I have been asked to reply to this question. The collection and examination of returns for 1927 is not yet complete. When it is, the number of convictions will he ascertainable, but I am afraid not the other particulars mentioned in the question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is it not important, in view of the working of the Merchandise Marks Act, that we should have a definite reply to the latter part of the question?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will wait until the return is available, I will see if it is possible to give any more information. I only put that in as a sort of caveat.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Will the right hon. Gentleman send me on the return when it is received?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, certainly.

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT (WOMEN).

Sir ROBERT THOMAS: 22.
asked the Secretary of State for Dominion Affairs whether he is aware that many women who are potential emigrants to one or other of the Dominions are deterred by the fear of being unable to raise the passage money home should life overseas prove uncongenial to thorn; and whether he will consider inserting a clause guaranteeing to assisted female emigrants their return fare after a certain period with due safeguards against abuse of the privilege?

Mr. AMERY: Single women are only assisted to proceed overseas for employment in household work. The rate of pay for such work in the Dominions is,
generally speaking, sufficient to enable women who wish to revisit this country to save enough money for this purpose within two years of arrival. I do not, therefore, think it necessary to adopt the hon. Member's suggestion.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE.

Sir R. THOMAS: 25.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether any anti-toxin against foot-and-mouth disease has been discovered; whether his Department or any unofficial body has experimented with it in the inoculation of cattle; and, if so, what were the results of the experiments?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. Guinness): For some years it has been known that the serum of animals which have recovered from foot-and-mouth disease, when injected into susceptible animals, will protect them for a few days against the disease. The Foot-and-Mouth Disease Research Committee and scientists on the Continent are actively trying to discover a practical method of giving animals a lasting immunity from the disease, but the task presents very great difficulties.

GERMANY (POISON GAS).

Sir W. DAVISON: 26.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has obtained any explanation from the German Government with regard to the large quantities of phosgene poison gas found to be stored in Hamburg contrary to the express terms of the peace treaty, as disclosed by the recent explosion of a tank containing the gas, with consequent serious loss of life: and what action is being taken in the matter?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Godfrey Locker - Lampson): The obligations assumed by the German Government under the Treaty of Versailles in respect to the manufacture and storage of chemicals utilisable as poison gas have been defined by agreement in subsequent correspondence between the ex-Allied Powers and that Government. They are set forth in Articles 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the. War Material Law, which entered
into force on the 6th August, 1927 (an English translation of which will be found in the number of the Board of Trade Journal published on the 17th of May), read in conjunction with an exchange of Notes which took place in February, 1927, between the German Chargé d'Affaire3 at Paris and the President of the Conference of Ambassadors. In substance, the situation resulting from these documents as regards phosgene is as follows:—The manufacture, storage, sale, import and export of phosgene, intended for war purposes, is forbidden. The manufacture of phosgene intended for industrial purposes is allowed, but is confined to three factories, and the machinery for producing the gas in each of these factories is limited so as to fix the total maximum output at nine tons a day. No restriction is placed upon the export or storage of phosgene so produced for industrial purposes. The facts hitherto brought to light afford no proof that the German Government has failed to ensure the observance of the conditions described above, and His Majesty's Government do not consider, therefore, that any action on their part is required. It is understood, however, that an official inquiry into the incident to which this question relates is being conducted by the Germ an authorities.

Sir W. DAVISON: Am I to understand from that reply that the German Government are really entitled to make as much poison gas as they like as long as they allege that it is for manufacturing purposes?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: As I have pointed out in my answer, it is restricted to a certain amount of tonnage.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is it not a fact that nine tons a day is enough to poison the whole world after a, few months making?

Mr. SHINWELL: Is the hon. Member for South Kensington entitled to cast a reflection upon any other Government with whom His Majesty's Government is in friendly relations?

Mr. SPEAKER: In the case of a Treaty for which we are responsible, I think the hon. Mem'3er is entitled to ask whether or not there has been an infringement of the Treaty.

Mr. SHINWELL: But the hon. Member has gone beyond that.

Mr. SPEAKER: An answer has been given.

Commander OLIVER LOCKER LAMPSON: How can you distinguish between industrial phosgene and war phosgene?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: If there is any suspicion of an infringement of the Treaty, the League of Nations immediately steps in and holds an inquiry.

Commander BELLAIRS: Are the Government not in a position to answer the question which was asked a few days ago as to what is the quantity of phosgene gas that was released?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I should like notice of that question.

Mr. KELLY: May I ask if the nine tons per day of phosgene gas which the German Government are allowed to manufacture applies to 365 days in the year?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, I suppose it does.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

NATIONALIST AUTHORITIES (RECOGNITION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any recognition has been extended by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Nationalist Government; if so, what form of recognition has been extended; and what steps are being taken to get into communication with the Nationalist Government of China, especially in view of recent events in Peking?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No formal recognition has been extended by His Majesty's Government to the Chinese Nationalist authorities, but communication with them is still maintained, as in the past, either through His Majesty's Minister or through His Majesty's Consular officers according as conditions allow or circumstances demand.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is the question of recognition now under consideration?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I think it is premature to consider that question at the present moment, because there is no civil Government in Peking at the present time but merely a military regime.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (DELEGATE).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 28.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to which Chinese Government the Chinese delegates to the League of Nations are answerable; and whether any steps have been taken to readjust the position in view of recent events?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The Chinese delegates to the League of Nations was appointed by a former Administration in Peking. Any readjustment of Chinese representation would be a matter for China herself to settle with the League, and I have no information as to the position.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did not the right hon. Gentleman tell me a moment ago that there is no civil government at Peking? Surely steps are being taken to put this matter right?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: It was the former government at Peking that appointed this delegate to the League of Nations, and it is for China, herself to appoint another representative to succeed him.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: What would happen if the representative of the last Government of this country were still at Geneva presiding over the deliberations of the League?

UNITED STATES (LOANS).

Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE: 31.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communication from the Government of the United States of America in regard to any possible scheme of settlement by that Government on behalf of the States which defaulted previous to the date of the union in respect of loans raised by them for industrial purposes?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS (AEREARS OF CONTRIBUTIONS).

Sir F. HALL: 32.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any of the member countries of the League of Nations are in arrears with the payment of their quota towards the expenses of the League; and, if so, will he give particulars of the Governments concerned and the amounts involved?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The details which the hon. and gallant Member requires, and which are of a lengthy character, will be found on pages 19 and 21 of the audited accounts of the League for 1997, of which I am sending the hon. and gallant Member a copy. This statement gives the position as on the 31st of December last, and is the latest published information on the subject.

Colonel WOODCOCK: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether these countries have voted the payment of the whole of their arrears?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: I may say that the Secretariat of the League of Nations is now engaged in negotiations and discussions on the subject of these arrears.

Dr. VERNON DAVIES: Is China in arrears?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: Yes, to a certain extent.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

POPLAR EMPLOYMENT EXCHANGE (OVERTIME).

Mr. LANSBURY: 34.
asked the Minister of Labour whether he is aware that during each week in May the number of hours overtime worked at the Poplar exchange exceeds the number of hours which would be worked during a normal week by an additional member of the staff; and what steps he intends to take to remedy the position?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Mr. Betterton): This overtime was in the main attributable to extra work of a kind requiring some experience and arising only on two days of the week. The De-
partment, wherever practicable, always engages extra staff rather than resort to overtime.

Mr. LANSBURY: Would it not be possible to allow someone on the staff to do this particular work, and take on someone to do the work which is not very important?

Mr. BETTERTON: I can assure the hon. Member that we are constantly keeping in view the avoidance of overtime, because it is a thing we wish to avoid at all possible occasions. Until now, in consequence of the operation of the new Act which came into force about a month ago, it has been found impracticable to avoid rather an unusual amount 44 overtime for a limited period.

Mr. LANSBURY: Surely the right hon. Gentleman can make some further inquiries? There are a very large number of reen capable of doing ordinary work and, notwithstanding this, during the whole month overtime has been worked.

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, I will certainly look into this matter again if the hon. Member wishes me to do so, but I must point out that, according to my information, the overtime only arose on two days in the week and not every time as the hon. Member seems to think.

BENEFIT DISALLOWED.

Mr. KELLY: 35.
asked the Minister of Labour t le number of cases of disputed unemployment benefit referred to the umpire by the insurance officers of the Ministry of Labour?

Mr. BETTERTON: During the period 19th April, 1928 to 14th May, 1928, 148 disputed 3laims to unemployment benefit were referred to the umpire, including 73 referred by the insurance officer, 50 appeals by associations and 25 by applicants for benefit who were not members of associations.

Mr. BATEY: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether there is an increase or a decrease in the number of cases sent to the umpire under the new Unemployment Insurance Act?

Mr. BETTERTON: I could not say without notice.

Mr. OLIVER: Are the decisions of the umpire on disputed points sent to the local officials at the Employment Exchanges for their guidance in cases which may arise in the future?

Mr. BETTERTON: I think, though I am not quite sure, that previous decisions of the umpire are circulated; at any rate, they are very easily available.

Mr. OLIVER: Is it not most important that that should be done, since otherwise the time of the officials at the Exchanges may be taken up with cases similar to those which have been already decided?

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the decision of the Umpire on the question of not genuinely seeking employment sent to the Courts of Referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes; my recollection is that all important decisions are published month by month in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette."

Mr. HARDIE: In dealing with this question, has not the Department yet arrived at a definition which will apply generally, as to what is meant by genuinely seeking work?

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the hon. Gentleman draw the attention of the various Exchange officials to the decision given by the Umpire two years ago on four points in connection with the question of not genuinely seeking employment?

Mr. BETTERTON: I have already said that all important decisions of the Umpire are circulated in the "Ministry of Labour Gazette," and, therefore, by that means, if by no other, are brought to the notice of the officials concerned.

Mr. STEPHEN: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: We have already had several supplementaries on this question.

Mr. STEPHEN: It is a very important point.

COURTS OF REFEREES.

Mr. KELLY: 36.
asked the Minister of Labour whether the Courts of Referees under the Unemployment Insurance Act are operating in each of the districts throughout the country?

Mr. BETTERTON: Yes, Sir.

Mr. KELLY: Has the Department any knowledge of the number of cases that are awaiting decision or awaiting hearing by the Courts of Referees?

Mr. BETTERTON: That is an entirely different question, and I do not think it can be said to arise out of the question on the Paper. If the hon. Member wishes for information on that point, perhaps he will put a question down.

INDUSTRIAL TRANSFERENCE BOARD.

Mr. E. BROWN (for Mr. HOREBELISHA): 48.
asked the Prime Minister when it is expected that the Report of the Industrial Transference Board will be published?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): I am at present unable to add to the reply which I gave on 22nd May in answer to a question by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aston (Sir E. Cecil).

Mr. BATEY: May we expect to have an answer before the House adjourns for the autumn Recess?

The PRIME MINISTER: Indeed, I hope so.

POST OFFICE FACILITIES, HARTLEPOOL.

Sir WILFRID SUGDEN: 38.
asked the Postmaster-General if he will reconsider his decision not to allow the post office in Hartlepool to transact any business, however vital and urgent, for any period whatever on Sundays, even though resolutions from public bodies, the local council, and from the inhabitants have been duly placed before him?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Viscount Wolmer): The representations referred to by my hon. Friend have been carefully considered, but my right hon. Friend regrets that he is unable to alter his decision. The amount of business transacted when the office was open was negligible and quite insufficient to justify the expense involved. Stamps are obtainable from an automatic machine outside the post office, and telegrams can be telephoned from a kiosk near the railway station, a few minutes' walk away.

Sir W. SUGDEN: Will my noble Friend bear in mind the hospital, and
the representations from the hospital with regard to the question of food, seeing that neither of the facilities that he has suggested covers the ground in respect of medicine or food?

Viscount WOLMER: I have not received their representations, but I should like to consult with my hon. Friend on the matter.

Mr. MACKINDER: Are we to understand that a public service is now to be measured by the amount of profit that is likely to be made?

Viscount WOLMER: The point about this particular post office is that we found that it was not being used on Sundays, and, therefore, it has been closed. There is, however, another office not very far off.

Mr. PALING: Is any arrangement made for filling these automatic machines on Sundays?

Viscount WOLMER: Yes, Sir.

HOUSING.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 42.
asked the Minister of Health what is now estimated to be the shortage of housing accommodation in England and Wales?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Sir Kingsley Wood): I regret that it is not possible to make a reliable estimate of the present shortage of houses in England and Wales.

Mr. SHINWELL: Is it not possible to offer this House some estimate of the shortage in housing accommodation?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I have just said so.

Mr. SHINWELL: Cannot the right hon. Gentleman give an approximate estimate? Are we to understand—[Interruption.] This is an important matter. Are we understand that a responsible Minister cannot give the House information as to an approximate estimate of the housing shortage in this country? May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, if he can obtain the information, will he make an effort to obtain it?

Mr. E. BROWN: Would it not be necessary, in order to answer that ques-
tion, to make a survey of the whole country, and was not such a survey turned down by the Labour Government in 1924?

TUBERCULOSIS (SANATORIUM TREATMENT).

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: 43.
asked the Minister of Health if he is aware of cases in which sufferers from tuberculosis have been precluded from receiving sanatorium treatment unless the patient consents to be vaccinated; and whether he has sanctioned regulations to that effect?

Sir K. WOOD: The answer to both parts of he question is in the negative.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the West Riding of Yorkshire it is said that some regulation exists which precludes a person suffering from tuberculosis from entering a, sanatorium unless he is vaccinated, and will he make inquiries on the point?

Sir K. WOOD: No, Sir; I should want something; far more definite than what someone said in some part of the country. If the hon. Member has any definite ilnformation on the matter, I will inquire into it.

Mr. WILLIAMS: If a definite case is submitted to the right hon. Gentleman, will he make inquiries?

Sir K. WOOD: Certainly.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Are we to understand that the Ministry of Health is not responsible for any regulation of this kind?

Sir K. WOOD: I have just said so.

NAVAL AND MILITARY PENSIONS AND GRANTS.

Sir F. HALL: 44.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he is aware that, after having been passed B 1 at the age of 57, Mr. Nicholas Pogose was gazetted as second-lieutenant with the 26th Lushai Indian labour company on the 17th December, 1917; that he served with his unit at Roisel and Bray, and in 1919 was ordered to Ypres and served with two Chinese companies at St. Julien and
Langemarch, where his eyes were poisoned by mosquitoes and he was ordered to be in readiness to go into hospital next day; that a medical board in November, 1922, stated that Mr. Pogose's disabilities had passed away and, in consequence, his pension and allowances ceased; that in June, 1923, the appeal tribunal reversed this decision, and pension was restored and subsequently increased from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent.; that at Mr. Pogose's last medical board on 20th September, 1927, the medical officers stated that the sight of his right eye was completely lost and that they did not like the appearance of the other eye; why pension has been consistently refused, in view of the weight of evidence of poisoning of the eyes by mosquito bites; and whether, as Mr. Pogose's sight is deteriorating very rapidly, he will forthwith take steps to reopen the matter and make some allowance to this man, who has suffered severely both in health and circumstances?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of PENSIONS (Lieut.-Colonel Stanley): My hon. and gallant Friend would appear to be misinformed as to the facts of this case. The officer in question is in receipt of pension for heart trouble and arteriosclerosis, in accordance with the decision of the Appeal Tribunal. His further claim in respect of eye trouble was considered and rejected by the Tribunal, and their decision is final. As my right hon. Friend has already informed the hon. and gallant Member, there are no grounds on which he would be warranted in adopting the course suggested in the last part of the question.

Sir F. HALL: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have gone carefully into the whole case, and have been in communication with his Department in regard to it for the last four or five months; and is he also aware that the medical tribunal made a mistake in 1923, and recognised that they had made a mistake? Considering that this man is losing his eyesight in consequence of the mosquito bites that he received at Langemarch, surely something ought to be done to look after him?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: I have looked at the correspondence, and my hon. and gallant Friend has communicated with the Ministry very frequently on this matter. As a matter of fact, he is mistaken in regard to one point. The Appeal Tribunal have not recognised that they made a mistake, and have never said anything of the sort. They said deliberately that this disability was not due to the War, and they have never corrected that statement.

Sir F. HALL: Am I to understand that the statement made in this question, that the medical board in November, 1922, stated that Mr. Pogose's disability had passed away, that in consequence his pension and allowances ceased, and that it was afterwards found that a mistake had been made, is wrong? Is this question right or is it wrong? If it is right, surely something ought to be done for this poor man?

Lieut.-Colonel STANLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend is entirely wrong. As I have tried to point out in my answer, the Appeal Tribunal decided that the aggravation of the heart trouble and the arteriosclerosis persisted, but, at the same time, that the defective eyesight was not attributable to the War.

SECRETARIES OF STATE (WALES).

Sir R. THOMAS: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the creation of a Secretaryship of State for Wales; and, if not, will he explain his reasons?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the—negative. The reasons against such a course would seem to be more suited for debate than for a reply to a Parliamentary question.

Sir R. THOMAS: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it fair to perpetuate this invidious distinction between Scotland and Wales?

The PRIME MINISTER: I rely upon the hon. Member to protect me from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Maidstone (Commander Bellairs), who is going to ask the next question.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the Prime Minister aware that Scotland does not want a Secretary of State, but wants a Government of her own?

Sir R. THOMAS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, unless this question is really favourably considered, there will be an overpowering demand in Wales for Home Rule?

Commander BELLAIRS: 46.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that up to 1855 there were only three Secretaries of State whereas now there are seven; and whether a reduction of the number can now be effected?

The PRIME MINISTER: My hon. and gallant Friend is under a misapprehension in thinking that there were only three Secretaries of State in 1855; there were, in fact, four at that time. I am not prepared to recommend to the House any reduction in the present number.

Commander BELLAIRS: Is it not the case that a fourth was created in 1855, and is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the First Lord of the Admiralty is not a Secretary of State, so why should the heads of the War Office and the Air Department be Secretaries of State?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is another question. If the fourth Secretariat was established in 1855, it was in existence in 1855.

Commander BELLAIRS: May I put the question the other way? May I take it that there will be no increase to satisfy the legitimate ambitions of various people, and that we shall not have a Secretariat State created for the Isle of Man?

Mr. MAXTON: Since the right hon. Gentleman refuses to interfere with the quantity of Secretaries of State, will he give some consideration to the quality?

CEYLON (ATTACK ON TOURISTS).

Viscount SANDON: 9.
asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he has had any Report on the assault near Colombo on. a, party of tourists from a visiting ship; whether there is any precedent in recent years for attacks of this character; whether there are any special implications to be drawn from
what occurred other than of a merely criminal character; how it was that the police v. ere not alive to this danger or capable of affording protection; whether any inquiry will be held other than the routine criminal proceedings; and what action is being taken as to the case?

Mr. AMERY.: I have not yet received any report from the Governor in the matter. I am not aware that any similar occurrence has been known in Colombo in recent years, and I am satisfied that the Ceylon Police Force is an efficient body and quite capable of maintaining order in normal circumstances. I shall await the Governor's recommendations before deciding whether any special inquiry is desirable.

GREAT BRITAIN AND UNITED STATES (TREATIES).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 29.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he can indicate the attitude of the Dominions, along with Ireland and India, towards the Kellogg proposals?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: The attitude of the Governments of the Dominions which have so far replied to the proposals in question is indicated in their answers to the invitation to become original parties to the proposed Treaty. The text or the substance of the reply has in each case been published.

Mr. SMITH: 30.
asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if the Dominions have raised any objections to Article 1.) of his reply to the Kellogg proposals?

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON: No, Sir.

CHAYNEL TUNNEL SCHEME.

Mr. THURTLE: 47.
asked the Prime Minister if he is aware that the decision against he Channel tunnel scheme, announced in 1924, was based partly on memoranda prepared by the general staffs of the three Services in 1920 and partly on a statement made by Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman in 1907; if he is aware that since this decision diplomatic developments and treaty engagements have greatly changed this military aspect of this question, which
was the decisive factor in the adverse decision; and if, in these circumstances, he would be prepared to provide Members of the House with an opportunity of recording their views on the desirability or otherwise of further consideration being given to this project?

The PRIME MINISTER: The memoranda prepared for the inquiry of 1924 brought up to date the information on every aspect of the question and included a special Report by the Chiefs of Staff Committee. I do not think the time has come to reopen the question, nor am I prepared at present to find time to discuss it.

Mr. THURTLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep an open mind as to the possibility of reopening this question after the American Peace Pact has been concluded?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that a Commission sat in 1878, I think, and reported favourably on making the Crinan Ship Canal?

TATE GALLERY (TURNER BEQUEST).

Mr. E. BROWN (for Mr. HOREBELISHA): 49.
asked the Prime Minister whether he has received any statement from the Royal Commission on National Museums and Galleries in reply to the representations contained in the memorial recently submitted to him and conveyed by him to the Commission, urging the removal of the drawings in the Turner bequest from the Tate Gallery to the Department of Prints and Drawings at the British Museum?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. The Royal Commission will report on the matter in due course.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PLAYING FIELDS.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: 50.
asked the President of the Board of Education whether his attention has been called to the absence of adequate playing-field
accommodation for children attending elementary schools in many urban areas; and whether he will seek powers to make a substantial grant towards the funds of the National Playing Fields Association for the purposes of increasing the facilities for recreation for elementary school children?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Duchess of Atholl): My right hon. Friend is fully alive to the need for more playing-field accommodation for children attending elementary schools in many urban areas, and he is prepared to consider sympathetically proposals for supplying the need. During the last three and a-half years over 500 proposals for providing playing fields, or school sites including playing fields, have been approved by the Board, and a number of similar proposals are now under consideration. As regards the last part of the question, the Board expect shortly to receive a deputation from the National Playing Fields Association to discuss the whole question of increasing the facilities available for elementary school children.

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: When new elementary schools are being erected, does the Board insist on their having playing fields attached?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I shall have to ask for notice of that question.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Is the Noble Lady aware that in various parts of South Yorkshire new or temporary schools are either being erected or fixed up with no playing accommodation at all?

ROYAL COLLEGE OF ART (APPOINTMENTS).

Mr. MacLAREN: 51.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he will cause all vacancies on the teaching staff of the Royal College of Art to be publicly advertised, and set up a special committee to make the final appointments?

Duchess of ATHOLL: I am not aware of any reason for altering the present method of filling vacancies on the staff of the Royal College of Art, but my right hon. Friend would be glad to consider any representations the hon. Member may wish to make to him on the subject.

ROYAL MILITARY TOURNAMENT (ACCIDENT).

Mr. RENNIE SMITH: 52.
asked the Secretary of State for War if he can furnish particulars of Fusilier Muston, who received a bayonet wound in connection with his duties at the Royal Tournament at Olympia on 6th June, and was taken to the Millbank military hospital?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Mr. Duff Cooper): I have received a report from Millbank hospital this morning which states that, while this soldier is still on the seriously ill list, ho is progressing as satisfactorily as can be expected.

PRISONERS (RELIGIOUS BOOKS).

Captain CAZALET: 56.
asked the Home Secretary whether, seeing that no prisoner in His Majesty's prisons is allowed to read any book of religion other than the Bible, save those admitted by the representative of the denomination under which he is classified on entry, he will see that, inasmuch as religion is the best reformative agent, prisoners are accorded the freedom of access to any religious books which have been admitted to the library by the governor and not only books of the denomination under which they are classified?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Prisoners have two classes of books, namely, various religious books according to their denomination that are always in their cell, and library books that are taken out of the library from time to time. I know of no ground for complaint on the score suggested by the question, but if my hon. and gallant Friend has any special case in mind, and will let me know, I will have it looked into.

Captain CAZALET: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the regulations governing the matter were made 30 years ago, and that the whole spirit concerning prisons has changed since then, and will he consider altering the regulations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: really do not think there is anything wrong. Prisoners may have certain books in their cells, according to their religion, and they are entitled to get from the library any book they like.

Captain CAZALET: If I bring complaints of prisoners to the right hon. Gentleman's notice, will he consider them?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is exactly what I said in the last part of my answer. I shall be only too glad.

GUN LICENCES (PROSECUTION, ONGAR).

Mr. DAY: 57.
asked the Home Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to a case heard recently at Ongar, Essex, when Witham Gayford, who was out with a party of shooters, was summoned for carrying a gun without licence, which gun belonged to one of the party; and, in view of the state of the law governing this offence, if he will consider the appointment of a Departmental Committee to consider this Act, with the view of introducing amending legislation?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: My attention had not been drawn to the case. On inquiry, find that the facts are not as suggested, and I do not think that the second part of the question arises.

SUBVERSIVE PROPAGANDA (RUSSIAN MONEY).

Sir W. DAVISON: 53.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can now inform the House as to the result of his inquiry into the sour yes from which the Russian Soviet authorities finance subversive propaganda and political activities in this country; and what action he proposes to take to prevent similar activities on the part of the Soviet authorities in future?

Major KINDERSLEY: 54.
asked the Home Secretary whether he can give the House any further information as to the transmission of money to Communist agents by a Russian bank in this country?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: 55.
asked the Home Secretary if he has now received full information regarding the £10 bank notes found on ',he persons of men arrested as Irish gunmen; and if he has any evidence showing that, the notes had come directly to these persons from one of the Russian banks in other than the ordinary course of
circulation and that the bank acted as an agent of the Soviet authorities and passed payment on their behalf?

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: In view of the obvious importance of Members being in a position to put supplementary questions, would it not be more convenient to read the answers now?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is very long, but perhaps, with Mr. Speaker's assent, I could read it at the end of Questions.

At end of Questions—

Mr. TROMAS: Can the right hon. Gentleman now give the answer?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It has been known for some years past that the Communist organisations in this country have been subsidised by gifts of money other than the subscriptions received from their own members. According to the Communist Party's own reports, in the first two years of its existence, after its formation in August, 1920, it received from outside sources £61,500 and from internal subscription £699 1s. 0d. In their cash account for the year ending 31st December, 1926, Workers' Publications Limited, the Company which publishes the "Sunday Worker," showed donations of £13,387 and for the year ending 31st December, 1927, donations of £9,899 and loans of £3,530. In 1925 I received information that the Communist International had allocated £16,000 to the Communist Party of Great Britain for that year, and that by the autumn they had already received £14,600. This and other information supported my suspicions that some, at all events, of the money disbursed by Communist organisations came from Russian sources and recent open statements of well-known Communists have made no secret of the fact that they-derive a large part of their finances from Russia.
During the past six or eight months, under my direction, the Commissioner of Police has been making inquiries to ascertain, if possible, the channel through which some of these funds passed, and as a result the police were able to furnish me with very valuable information indicating that money for various Communist organisations in this country had
passed through the Moscow Narodny Bank, London. I need hardly say that the information supplied to me by the Commissioner of Police did not purport in any sense of the term to be an exhaustive catalogue of the moneys reaching these organisations, but it indicated with absolute certainty that the Moscow Narodny Bank was the channel through which during the past six or eight months large sums had passed to Communist organisations.
On the 19th April, 1928, a question was put to me by the hon. and gallant Member for Hitchin (Major Kindersley) as to whether, in view of the fact that Bank of England notes found on persons described as "Irish gunmen" arrested before Easter for being in illegal possession of firearms had been traced to a Russian banking institution in this country, I would make inquiries as to whether any of the moneys standing to the credit of Russian trading organisations in this country were being used in attempts to foment and organise revolutionary action in this country, and I answered that my hon. and gallant Friend's information was correct and that I was satisfied that Russian money was being used as suggested in the question.
Thereupon the two Russian banks trading in this country, the Bank for Russian Trade and the Moscow Narodny Bank, wrote to me challenging my statement and offering facilities for investigation. So far as the Bank for Russian Trade is concerned, the matter was a very small one and related to two £10 Bank of England notes which had been found in the possession of Michael Burke, alias Smith, when he was arrested on the 17th March, 1928. My inquiries have established definitely that these notes passed through the Bank for Russian Trade and the bank informed my representatives that on the 9th November, 1927, they despatched them by registered post, with other notes amounting in all to £9,800, to the Guarantee and Credit Bank, another Soviet institution, in Berlin. The subsequent movements of these two notes have not yet been traced. As regards the Moscow Narodny Bank, I had information from police sources of far more extensive transactions, in the course of which large quantities of .21 Treasury notes passed through the bank
to various Communist organisations in this country. On the 19th April, 1928, the bank wrote to me as follows:—

"To the Home Secretary.

Sir,

I have seen from this evening's Press that you suggested in Parliament some connection between the Russian Banks in this country and the operations of certain Irish gunmen.

As acting chairman of the Moscow Narodny Bank, Ltd., which has carried on the banking transactions of the Russian Co-operative movement in this country with English and other Banks for the past 12 years, I desire to state most emphatically that the Bank is solely engaged in ordinary banking and commercial transactions, and has to its knowledge had no dealings at ail with Irish or other gunmen.

All its transactions are audited twice yearly by Messrs. Deloitte, Plender, Griffiths and Co. The Bank is prepared immediately to give all facilities to this firm or to any other first-class firm of Accountants to satisfy themselves as to whom and in what circumstances all payments have been made by it at any period you please.

But the Bank has no knowledge of, and cannot, of course, take any responsibility for, what happens to banknotes after they have been paid across its counters in the ordinary course of business.

Yours faithfully,

(Sgd.) A. Gorituvirrcn."

I caused the following reply to be sent:

"A Gourevitch, Esq.,

The Moscow Narodny Bank, Ltd.

Sir,

In reply to your letter of the 19th instant, I am directed by the Secretary of State to inform you that he has taken note of your assurance that the Moscow Narodny Bank is solely engaged in ordinary banking and commercial transactions, and observes with satisfaction that the Bank is prepared to give facilities for an investigation into the circumstances in Which particular payments may have been made by it.

Apart from the incident which gave rise to the recent Questions in Parliament, the Secretary of State has cognisance of certain recent transactions of your Bank which prima facie do not fall within the category of ordinary banking and commercial transactions, and he welcomes the opportunity of ascertaining the explanation which the Bank have to offer of the circumstances in which they were undertaken. He assumes from the terms of your letter that the Bank would be ready to afford the fullest facilities for inquiry into these matters, and he would suggest that the necessary particulars should be ascertained by members of the Home Department nominated by him to visit the offices of the Bank for this purpose. Any assistance which the auditors of the
Bank can furnish in this connection would, of course, be welcomed.

I am, Sir,

Your obedient Servant,

(Sgd.) JOHN ANDERSON."

To this suggestion the Bank agreed and I accordingly detailed two members of my staff to attend at the Bank and make certain investigations. The information furnished to me by the police proved to be extremely accurate and it was of the greatest assistance to my representatives in the course of their enquiry.

The abject of the enquiry being to ascertain the channels through which certain Treasury notes known to have passed through the Bank had reached various Communist organisations, my representatives began by asking from what source the Bank obtained its supplies of Treasury notes. They were assured that all supplies of £1 Treasury notes required by the Bank were obtained against cheques drawn on the Bank's account with Lloyds Bank, High Holborn. Their enquiries have established, however, that, in addition to the Treasury notes obtained as above, large quantitie3 of Treasury notes, amounting in all to aver £17,000 have been obtained by messengers of the Bank against exchanges of Bank of England notes at the Bank of England, Lloyds Bank, High Holborn, and the Midland Bank (Overseas Branch). They found that since the 4th Mai oh, 1927, no record of the numbers of Bank of England notes had been kept, by the cashier with the exception of new notes obtained from Lloyds Bank. These transactions, therefore, did not appear fully, as they should have done, in the records of the Bank, and it was on13 by degrees that information regarding these transactions was extracted from the cashier and the messengers of the Bank after repeated assurances that no supplies of Treasury notes had been drawn otherwise than against cheques from Lloyds Bank, High Holborn, or in small sums from the Bank of England. The purpose of these large exchanges of Bank notes for Treasury notes will presently appear.

From tie outset the information given by the Bank officials was that they were quite unable to connect any transactions of the Thank with the payments to Communist organisations of which my repro-
sentatives furnished particulars. Their enquiries, have, however, brought to light two series of transactions, which were undoubtedly the channels through which money was supplied to Communist organisations during the period July, 1927, to April, 1928:

(1) The transactions of W. B. Duncan.

These transactions extended from the 27th October, 1927, to the 20th April, 1928, and were carried out by W. B. Duncan, a clerk in the Foreign Exchange Department of the Bank. Some of them at any rate were known to the Directors on the 20th April, since, as a result of a Committee of Inquiry appointed by them on that day—that is subsequent to the question in the House—Duncan was dismissed from the Bank. This fact was, however, not disclosed to my staff on their first visit to the Bank on Friday, the 27th April, and it was not until towards the close of their second visit on Monday, the 30th April, when they asked a direct question regarding a particular payment to Duncan, of which they found a record in the Counter Cash Book, that they were told of Duncan's dismissal a week before. It must have been obvious that Duncan's transactions were prima facie of the very kind which they had been appointed to investigate, and I do not understand why their attention was not drawn to them in response to their first inquiries.

Duncan's procedure was to sell large quantities of dollars to Foreign Exchange Brokers or to the Cashier of the Bank. He instructed the Moscow Narodny Bank messengers to take the Bank notes, received as a result of his sales to brokers, to the Bank of England, the Midland Bank or Lloyds Bank and exchange them for Treasury notes. This procedure continued from the 27th October, 1927, down to the 15th February, 1928, on which date he opened an account with the Moscow Narodny Bank. Into this account he paid the proceeds of his sales, and he obtained supplies of Treasury notes by immediate withdrawals against cheques. The total sum involved in Duncan's transactions from the 27th October, 1927, to the 20th April, 1928, amounted to at least 814,202. On the 20th April, as a result of the publicity given to certain allegations against the Bank, the Committee of Inquiry referred to above was
set up by the Bank, and their attention having been called to Duncan's account they called upon him for an explanation. He was unable to give one that was satisfactory and was accordingly dismissed. My representatives saw Duncan, and his explanation to them was completely at variance with the facts. Of the real nature of his transactions there can be no doubt; for a considerable number of the Treasury notes received by Duncan from the Moscow Narodny Bank or its messengers have been definitely traced as having passed within a few days into the hands of the Communist party of Great Britain and its allied bodies.

(2) The transactions of F. Quelch and F. Priestley.

At various dates from the 5th July, 1927, to the 20th November, 1927, some £10,000 worth of £5 Bank of England notes, in batches of £500 to £2,000, were exchanged for £1 Treasury notes over the counters by the cashiers of the Bank at the request of two employes of Centrosoyus Limited, F. Quelch and F. Priestley. In addition bank notes to the value of £1,500 were paid into a joint account in the names of Quelch and Priestley, which my staff were told was for the purpose of clearing up the affairs of Mestkom (the Union of Soviet Employes). Priestley told them that the notes paid into the joint account were given to him by Alexander Squair, the Secretary of Mestkom. These payments were offset by large withdrawals of £1 Treasury notes, so that. in effect, these were also exchanges through the Bank. On the 9th and 20th September, 1927, Quelch sold dollars to the value of £2,666 to the cashier of the Moscow Narodny Bank, and received payment in £1 Treasury notes; and on the 13th October, 1927, through the medium of Priestley's personal account, he exchanged for £1 Treasury notes eight £100 notes, which were probably the result of a sale of dollars. The total sum involved in Quelch and Priestley's transactions from the 5th July to the 20th November, 1927, amounted to at least £13,796.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Is that in addition to the £14,000?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, it is an addition. A considerable number of £1 Treasury notes received by Quelch or Priestley from the Moscow Narodny
Bank as a result of the exchanges described above were definitely traced, within a few days, to the Communist party of Great Britain and its allied bodies. After the inquiries of my representatives had elicited this information the Board of Centrosoyus called upon Messrs. Quelch and Priestley to give an explanation of their transactions. This they were unable to do satisfactorily, and they have accordingly been dismissed.
As stated above, Quelch and Priestley exchanged through the Moscow Narodny Bank large quantities of notes in batches of £500 to £2,000. My representatives ascertained the serial numbers of these notes to the extent of £10,330, and by this means they were able to establish definitely that they formed part of a sum of £20,000 handed personally by the assistant cashier of the Moscow Narodny Bank to Mr. Shannin, Commercial Attaché of the U.S.S.R. at the Soviet Embassy, on the 25th May, 1927 —immediately after the Arcos transactions—as follows: £4,000 in £1 Treasury notes and £16,000 in £5 Bank of England notes. This payment was debited to an account with the Bank of the Edel Metalle Vertriehs A.G. of Berlin upon which Mr. Shannin apparently had authority to operate. I have no doubt that even more of the original £16,000 worth of £5 notes were also exchanged by Quelch and Priestley, but to demonstrate this it would be necessary to trace individual notes, and my representatives have not thought it necessary to delay their report for this purpose. It is obvious that the £16,000 in £5 notes which Mr. Shannin, the Soviet representative, received in May, 1927, must have been held by some person whose name l have not been able to find—Shannin is, of course, no longer in the country—who released them to Quelch and Priestley in batches of from £500 to £2,000 as required.
I find, therefore, that through these three persons, Duncan, Quelch and Priestley, a total sum of not less than £27,998 was disbursed for Communist purposes during the period 5th July, 1927, to 20th April, 1928, and that at least £10,330 of this sum was derived from a payment of £5 Bank of England notes made through the Moscow-Narodny Bank to the Commercial Attaché at the Soviet Embassy in May, 1927.
A full report of my investigations has been communicated to the directors of the bank, and I have received from them a detailed statement upon the matter, in the course of which the directors, individually and collectively, disclaim all knowledge of the transactions in question. I ought to add that they have also dismissed further members of their staff who were implicated in this matter. I hope the House will permit me to add a public expression of my appreciation of the admirable manner in which these difficult and protracted inquiries have been carried cut by my representatives.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we should all like to see it print this very interesting revelation of the sources of the moneys of the Communist party in this country. May I ask the Home Secretary two questions: Is the only transaction involving the Baal, for Russian Trade that to which he has made reference?

Sir W JOYNSON-HICKS: indicated assent.

Mr. MacDONALD: Secondly, does he propose to consider any steps that can be taken as a result of the revelations?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: The Bank for Russian Trade is not implicated in this at all, except that two £10 notes passed from them to Germany and back. In regard to the second part of the question, I cannot give a decision now, particularly in view of the very strong detailed statement from the directors, who have assured the Home Office that they personally had no knowledge of these transactions, and that they have taken all the steps they possibly could to put the affairs of their bank in order. They have offered to allow me to make any further investigations at any time that I desire.

Mr. THOMAS: Apart from the responsibility of the directors of the bank, is the Home Secretary in a position to say whether the receipt of this money by the three persons named by him constitutes an illegal act against the interests of the State?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: That is a matter upon which at present I cannot give a decision. I am taking advice.

Mr. THOMAS: Will the Home Secretary take advice and ascertain whether that action is legal or illegal, and, if
illegal, will he, in the interests of the State and on behalf of the Government, take the necessary steps to deal with it?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: This investigation has taken a great deal of my time for some months, and, now that I have completed it, I shall place the whole matter before my legal advisers, and I shall act upon their advice.

Mr. THOMAS: In the interval, if statements are made that there is coming to this country Russian money used ostensibly for the purpose of injury to the State, will he either test that right out or stop those making the statements?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: It is not possible to stop anybody making statements, as the right hon. Gentleman knows; but, if I find that money is coming into this country which, in the opinion of my legal advisers is a crime, I shall, naturally, take proceedings.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the right hon. Gentleman give a fair opportunity for an explanation of his statement, which is nothing but a series of banking transactions by persons responsible in charge of certain accounts? Was the right hon. Gentleman aware, and if he was not aware, did he not see a publication in March last by the Communist party in this country, that the Communist organisation is an international organisation, of which there are 41 international sections, with a total membership of 1,700,000, and that each one of these members is paying into the central bank in Moscow. I, for one, as the right hon. Gentleman can see from this card, month after month, as a member of that organisation, pay in my contributions to our central fund, and it is shown on my card. With respect to all the figures which the right hon. Gentleman gave, is he in a position to deny that they are perfectly legitimate remittances from the central office of a political organisation for disbursement to the several sections in different parts of Europe, and does he find anything objectionable or illegal in such transactions Has he, further, investigated the fact that if he went into the records of the Co-operative Society's bank in this country, he might find millions of pounds drawn out and put in by the Labour party—another political organisation? Has the right hon. Gentle-
man also taken care to investigate into a bank in Berlin and into a bank in Amsterdam, and will he not find out how the International Federation of Trade Unions in Amsterdam meet their expenses, of which more than three-quarters, nearly four-fifths, come from the British Trade Union Congress and are sent to Amsterdam—

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member's question is developing into a considerable speech.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Considering the length of the statement made by the Home Secretary, every sentence of which is a statement of certain portions of facts but not the whole facts, and which conveys a very gross misunderstanding of the whole situation, are we not entitled to put to the right hon. Gentleman the real purpose of the investigation, which he has missed? Has he made his investigations only to supply copy to the Conservative Press, or has he made them in the fair spirit of a Home Secretary?

Sir W. DAVISON: Does not the Home Secretary's statement and the supplementary questions of the hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Saklatvala) show clearly that all dealings between the Soviet authorities and this country, of any kind or description, should be put an end to, trade being used simply as a blind in order to spread propaganda?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is a matter for debate. We must deal only with the actual question.

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have not proceeded on the lines suggested by the hon. Member for Battersea, North. I have proceeded as the Home Secretary should proceed, with a desire to obtain the truth. With regard to the details for which he has asked me, I must ask him to give notice.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: Will the Home Secretary be willing to take the full details either from myself or from some other responsible person, as to the very simple nature and the perfect legal procedure of these accounts which he has read out, before he comes to any definite decision and conveys an impression to the country which is an entirely false impression?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If the hon. Member will supply me with the missing
links, which he is probably able to do, I should be grateful.

Commander LOCKER-LAMPSON: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it a criminal offence for any person or any body to receive foreign money for subversive purposes?

Mr. MAXTON: Does the Home Secretary realise that there is a matter of some constitutional importance involved in this question? Is it his view that the sources of a political party's finances are subject to scrutiny by his officers at any time he thinks fit, or does that attitude merely apply to a party, which is only represented by one Member in this House?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Neither to the one nor to the other. I have no authority to inquire into the accounts of any political party, whether represented by one or by 100 Members in this House, but when foreigners, aliens, are trading here, I have certain rights and in pursuance of those rights I am entitled to ask them to give me certain information, which they gave me very freely and very willingly.

Mr. MAXTON: Would the right hon. Gentleman dare to investigate the funds of the political party of which I am chairman in the way he has investigated these?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: If I thought it desirable, I should dare to do anything.

Mr. MAXTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman assert that he is above the law of the land?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Not at all. As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, I should always act within the law. All that I meant to imply was that I was not frightened of the hon. Member.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The Home Secretary mentioned three names. Is there anything in the investigations and in the Report that implicates either the Moscow Bank or the Russian Bank for Foreign Trade or the Bank of Russian Trade in any way? Have they only carried out ordinary banking transactions, and is there any proof that they were aware of the use that was made of these particular moneys?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I will admit that my statement was very long, hut, if the hon. and gallant Gentleman reads it to-morrow, he will see that I made cer-
taro comments about the absence of knowledge on the part of the directors. But, on the other hand, I accept the statement made by the directors that they were not cognisant of what was going on.

Several HON. MEMBERS: rose
—

Mr. SPEAKER: I think this Debate had better be adjourned till another day. There is plenty of opportunity for further question: to be put down.

Mr. MACLEAN: On a point of Order. Is not the main point of this being lost sight of in that certain people—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] Mr. Speaker will tell me if it is a point of Order. Evidently, there are too many competitors for the new Speakership. Is not the whole point being lost sight of, in that three individual names were mentioned to whom moneys were paid out, and is net the main question before the House, in relation to that question at any rate, what is being done, or is likely to be done, if those three individuals have been using that money for any ulterior purpose?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: On a point of Order. I desire your ruling, Mr. Speaker. Would it be in order for me now to ask permission to raise this question on an Adjournment, as being a very important question which requires more explanation than what we have got?

Mr. SPEAKER: Certainly, the hon. Member can raise it at Eleven o'Clock in the evening.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: May I give notice to raise it?

Mr. SPEAKER: Which day?

Mr. SAKLATVALA: The most convenient time, when we may have more than half an hour.

POLICE INVESTIGATIONS (JUDGE'S SPEECH).

Sir R. THOMAS: (by Private Notice) asked the Home. Secretary whether his attention has been drawn to the speech of Judge Atherley-Jones at Westhourne Park Baptist Chapel, London, yesterday, in which he criticised the conduct of the police, and made observations on the
Savidge case, and what action he proposes to take in the matter?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have seen news reports. I would prefer not to pronounce upon any speech made by a Judge in such circumstances.

Sir R. THOMAS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether the tribunal now sitting on the Savidge case has power to commit for contempt of court?

Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKS: Yes, Sir.

Mr. MACLEAN: Can it commit a Judge?

BILLS PRESENTED.

RESERVOIRS (SAFETY PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to impose, in the interests of safety, precautions to be observed in the construction, alteration and use of reservoirs, and to amend the law with respect to liability for damage and injury caused by the escape of water from reservoirs," presented by Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 146.]

NORTHERN IRELAND (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL,

"to make miscellaneous amendments in the Law applicable to Northern Ireland," presented by Secretary Sir William Joynson-Hicks; to be read a Second time To-morrow, and to be printed. [Bill 147.]

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Private Bills (Consolidation),—That they have added a Lord to the Joint Committee appointed by both Houses to consider all Private Bills for the exclusive purpose of consolidating the provisions of existing Private Acts of Parliament, and request the Commons to add one of their Members to the said Joint Committee.

Year.
Unemployment Benefit.
Out-of-Work Donation.
Poor Law Relief to able-bodied persons and their dependants.





Calendar Year.
Year ended 31st March.
Year ended 31st March.





£
£
£


1927
…
…
36,750,000
—
17,350,000


1928
…
…
Not yet available.
—
8,500,000

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY.

[11TH ALLOTTED DAN.]

considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1928.

CLASS VI.

BOARD OF AGRICULTURE, SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £350,179, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the Salaries and Expenses of the Board of Agriculture for Scotland, including Grants for Agricultural Education and Training, Loans to Co-operative Societies, and certain Grants-in-Aid."—[Note.— £100,000 has been voted on account.]

Mr. MACPHERSON: It will be within the recollection of the Committee that seine time ago the Scottish Estimates were put down for consideration in Committee, and at that time there was what, in my judgment, was a legitimate protest made that these Estimates could not be properly considered until such time as the appropriate reports dealing with administration were in the hands of the Members of the Committee. It is quite clear that without reports dealing with the administration of the preceding year, the Committee could not usefully discuss the Estimates. Since then—and I congratulate my right hon. Friend upon it—reports have appeared in rapid succession. I think we have had no fewer than seven or eight, and these reports are of varying importance, but I think the report with which I am going to deal to-day is the one which, in the opinion of Scottish Members, is the most important of all. I think that the party to which I have the honour to belong is entitled to be congratulated for taking this, the very first opportunity of discussing a subject with which that party has been for so long and so honourably connected in Scotland.
This year there are three reports dealing with the land problem of the country. There are, the Report of the Land Court, the Report of the Board of Agriculture,
and the Report of the Committee on Land Settlement which was instituted over a y ear ago. As to the Land Court Report, I have got very little to say at present. This year it is very meagre and very emasculated, and I hope that my right hon. Friend has not allowed on this occasion a clerk at the Stationery Office to cut that report to pieces, as a clerk did at the Stationery Office not very long ago in dealing with another Scottish Report. It may be, however, that the very meagreness of the Report is a good sign. I have read it, as my colleagues have read it, from cover to cover, and I think we, are satisfied with the work which the Land Court is doing. The second Report is of more importance. I refer to the Report of the Board of Agriculti re itself. It is not meagre and emasculated, as one would have expected from a body which, we understood, was moribund. It has still got its blue cover, even although—to use the appropriate language for this week of the Prayer Book—we sang its Nuns Dimittis, but the Board of Agriculture is still with us, and—to use the appropriate agricultural language—is still kicking.
If my colleagues have considered, as have no doubt they have considered, the Estimate; as they appear in the White Book, they will have seen that this year, as last year, and, indeed, every year, the one amount which makes us pause, and gives us cause for great anxiety and often anger, is the amount which annually is used by the Board of Agriculture to pay its own salaries and expenses. Out of a sum this year of £450,000, no less than £120,000 goes in salaries, wages and allowances. That is a significant figure having regard to another, namely Grants-in-aid of the purposes of small-holdings and land settlement. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will see to what I refer on page 145 of the White Paper. Last year the amount expended by the Government was £175,000, and this year it is only to be £75,000. The amount of £100,000 less this year that last year on the most important of all the schemes of the Board of Agriculture requires a good deal of explanation. I shall be glad to hear what explanation my right hon. Friend can give me with regard to that. There is something wrong somewhere. While you have a diminution of £100,000 upon the
most important of all schemes, you have only a diminution of £540 in the travelling expenses of the Board. I notice that though there is no diminution in the travelling expenses of the Board, at the same time, in the Report, on Page 11, they say:
Much of the Board's time during the year has been occupied in the preparation of memoranda, including financial and statistical statements, for submission to the Committee.
Surely there must be an explanation of that. If the whole of the Board's time, as their own report says, has been utilised in preparing statistics and memoranda, there must have been some sort of diminution in the amount expended in travelling expenses and allowances; but there is no such diminution. When the Board of Agriculture was instituted in this House, it was instituted primarily for the settlement of men upon the land, and let me read for a moment a short sentence in the Board's own Report which my right hon. Friend will find on page 12. It says:
Appendix No. 1 shows the position with regard to the 22,530 applications received by the Board since 1st April. 1912. As stated above, 4,915 have been satisfied through the settlement of applicants; 9,389 have been withdrawn subsequent to lodgment, either by the applicants themselves or by the Board; while 8,226 remained on the. Board's lists pending settlement.
That appears to me, and to nay colleagues who represent Scotland, as a disgraceful state of affairs. Nobody appreciates the difficulties which the Board encountered more than I do. We have to remember that the War intervened. We have to remember that prices after the War were exceedingly high. The price of stock was high, the price of land was high and the Price of food and implements was high, but the fact remains, as one would gather from questions put recently by my hon. Friends above the Gangway and myself and other colleagues in the House, to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, there is a tremendous demand unfulfilled in Scotland to-day for land settlement. I am not going to refer again to the question of Glenshiel and Kintail in my own constituency. I have been pressing, as my right hon. Friend knows, for an adequate settlement of smallholders in that
part—a very desirable part for a settlement—but, as far as I know, nothing has been done. I know my right hon. Friend has been giving it his personal attention and for that I am grateful, but the fact remains that there is an unfulfilled demand by eligible applicants for land throughout the whole of Scotland, and particularly in the Highlands, and after 16 years of work, 16 years of heavy bills for travelling expenses and allowances for the Board of Agriculture, we have still, on their own showing, no less than 8,226 men whose applications have not yet been satisfied. It requires a great deal of explanation.
While I am dealing with the question of land settlement in Kintail and Glenshiel, may I ask whether the right hon. Gentleman is in active co-operation with the Forestry Commission on the subject? I know of three or four cases in which the fixity of tenure of the smallholder has been in jeopardy because the Forestry Commission come forward with a claim to take possession of the land as suitable for tree growing, even when the land has been acquired by the smallholder under Statutes passed by this House. Surely it is wrong for one Department to interfere with grants which have been sanctioned by another Department, and it seems to me that it is a clear case of a lack of co-operation between these two Government Departments. It is in the interests of both Departments, if they are to fulfil the objects for which they were created, that land settlement should take place with good will and should be effective. Instead of that we find one Department fighting against the other. It is a condition of things which ought not to be tolerated, and I hope the Committee today will make strong representations against any conflict between two Government Departments on such an important issue.
As I have felt it my duty to make these comments on the work of the Board of Agriculture—I hope I have not spoken too strongly—may I say what pleasure it gives me to point out to the Committee the many good things which the Board has done and is doing. I refer, particularly, to what it is doing in agricultural education and research. I should like to draw the attention of the Committee, and indeed of all those interested
in agricultural education, to the Report which the Secretary of State got from an old colleague of mine in Ireland—Mr. Campbell—which is well worth a study. If all the recommendations suggested in that Report were carried out the Board of Agriculture and the Secretary of State would confer great benefit indeed on the biggest industry in the country.
Another example of the good work which the Board is doing is the improvement in live stock. One has only to visit agricultural shows in the remote villages in the Highlands to notice the enormous improvement that has taken place within recent years in all kinds of stock, cattle and sheep and ponies, and I gladly give my meed of praise to the Board of Agriculture for what it has been doing in this respect. May I strike again a note of criticism. Last year a very large grant was given for agricultural drainage, but very little is allotted this year for so desirable a purpose. We all know how valuable it is as an asset in the perfecting of agricultural land. Let me read what is said on page 65 of the Report of the Board of Agriculture:
Particulars were given in the Board's last Report of the allocation of grants amounting to £20,625 offered by them under the Agricultural Drainage Scheme, 1926–27. At 31st December, 1927, claims amounting to £14,708 had been paid, and only three claims remained outstanding. It appeared that many applicants had failed to take full advantage of the grants offered to them. The total cost to the applicants of the work in respect of which these grants were paid was approximately £48,960, of which sum £35,590 represented the wages to the workmen engaged.
Surely no money could be more profitably expended than on drainage, for the reason I have given. You have more than three-quarters of the amount used for unemployment purposes, giving work to unemployed. It is not relief work, but productive work, which in the long run will make that soil more fertile than ever and make it an additional advantage to the community and the country as a whole. One word about agricultural cooperation. Some friends of mine on these benches are extremely interested in this question I am equally interested. The whole of Scotland is interested in two new movements. I refer to the milk co-operative movement and the wool co-
operative movement. The milk co-operative movement has a great hold on the second city of the Empire, Glasgow. It is doing magnificent work, and is of great advantage to that large and flourishing community. Speaking for all my colleagues, I say that we are most anxious that the Board of Agriculture and Secretary of State should give every support possible to a movement of this kind.
The same applies to co-operation in wool. Last year I travelled through Canada, and I found that the agriculturists there were very keen in support of the "Pool" system. That is a system which would be of enormous advantage to remote agriculturists all over Scotland. The hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) knows that there are many agriculturists far away from the big market centres who, if assisted by some co-operative scheme, would be able to market their wool and other products at a reasonable price. At the present moment they cannot possibly do so. I notice with much pleasure that all the important agricultural associations in Scotland support very strongly this co-operative movement in wool, and I hope that the Secretary of State to-day will give us an assurance that the cooperative movement in wool and in milk will be supported by the authorities and by the Government. Let me deal with one small point before I come to the Report of the Nairne Committee. Under the Corn Production Acts (Repeal Act), 1921—I see the Lord Advocate present and he will probably appreciate the point—it became the duty of the Board of Agriculture to insist upon the destruction of injurious weeds in agricultural districts. I support that duty, but when a duty of that kind is placed upon any official body it should be exercised with patience, caution and prevision.
In the very midst of harvest in my own constituency, which is one of the most wonderful agricultural constituencies in the world the Board of Agriculture sees fit to distribute harum-scarum its warnings to these farmers, who are noted all over the world for the excellence of their crops. They feel insulted by the receipt of what they regard as meddlesome and pettifogging notices from an incompetent
body in Edinburgh. There was only one case in the Courts last year in which a fine of £3 was imposed, and I beg the Secretary of State to warn his officials in Edinburgh not to send out helter-skelter warnings and notices in the midst of harvest, which is the most important time for farmers, and that if they are to send these warnings they should have some justification for so doing. I produced last year two cases of warning notices sent out in the middle of the only good week in September, when the crops were being cut and gathered. It is sheer stupidity on the part of the Board in Edinburgh to send out indiscriminately notices of this kind to men who know their work far better than any Board in Edinburgh or in London.
Having dealt with the two Reports which we are accustomed to discuss on Scottish Estimates let me deal with the Report which I regard as the most important of all. I refer to the Report of the Committee on Land Settlement in Scotland, but which is generally referred to as the Report of the Nairne Committee. It is within the recollection of hon. Members that when this Committee was appointed over a year ago some of us had misgivings as to is composition. It was appointed without any consultation with the House of Commons. The Secretary of State was perfectly entitled to do that, but when we heard the names of the Committee suddenly announced many of us felt some anxiety. We wondered why a Committee of this kind was being appointed at that particular moment. Rightly or wrongly we had a suspicion that a Committee of this kind, appointed to investigate land settlement, which was not looked upon with high favour in some quarters, might be hostile to that movement.
We have all read that Report, and I must confess that it is a most agreeable surprise. My old friend, Mr. Joseph Duncan was a member of the Committee. He is one of the best known Labour candidates in Scotland, a very able man, and one who is sincerely anxious to do his best for the betterment of land conditions in Scotland. But the fact remains that he wrote a very telling pamphlet against small holdings. He pointed out that they were uneconomical and were the
last resort of infirm agrarian minds. When a protagonist of that character was on the Committee I, for one, felt rather doubtful as to what its findings would be, but I am agreeably surprised to find that Mr. Duncan signs the Report, which says that of all the movements in agriculture in Scotland the small holdings movement has produced the greatest effect. It is well to recall the terms of reference to that Committee. My right hon. Friend will find them on page 5 of the Report. I am sorry to have to read so much from the book, but the quotations are important.
I have read every line of this Report, as have all my colleagues, and I say again that it is amazing to find, after half a century of experience of the small landholding movement, how sound and statesmanlike were the views m to land settlement of the great Liberal pioneers of 50 years ago. Let me take the terms of reference one by one. The first was to inquire as to the cost incurred by the State in carrying out land settlement. The Committee very properly point out that the whole case is bristling with difficulties. I quite admit that fact. But the most virulent critic of the small-holding movement always bases the justice of his criticism on the amount of the necessary cost of these holdings. It was very difficult to come to any accurate estimate of the cost. You had the pre-War period, the War period, and the period after the War, when great pressure was put, as the Committee point out, upon the Board of Agriculture to settle men, and particularly ex-service men on the land. The result has been—it is very deplorable—that a great amount of very unsuitable land has been purchased and partially developed for small holdings by the Board of Agriculture. But when the Committee came to a conclusion as to the cost, the critics of the small-holding movement must have felt themselves confounded.
The average cost of settling a man and his family upon a small holding in the North of Scotland, is only £265. There is, of course, a very much larger average for the whole of Scotland, but does anyone say that the amount is excessive when one remembers that the beet sugar industry got for its manufacturers, in 1927 and 1928, no less than £167,552? Surely anyone who realises that, while
sugar may melt away, there is a permanent result in a small holding, will agree that £265 for the permanent settlement on the land of a happy and contented peasant is a very much better bargain than a temporary subsidy for an industry which ought very properly to stand upon its own feet? Some of us may say that £265 is a large sum, though in our heart of hearts we do not agree with that statement. Let us consider what is happening now in Australia and Canada. For the type of man that you are settling in the rural parts of Scotland the Australian Government, or even one of the States of Australia, is prepared to expend £1,600 to £2,000. If we at home, in the heart of the Empire, do not know the value of a man of that sort, every one of the Dominions knows his value and is prepared at any time to spend £1,600 to £2,000 for his settlement upon Dominion land. I have told the Committee the amount that the Board of Agriculture spends annually upon travelling allowances and expenses. For one year's travelling allowances and expenses of the Board we could settle 480 families upon the land permanently. The complaint of cost, when compared with figures of that kind, is ridiculous. I am certain that no money could be more profitably expended in any part of the country than for the proper settlement of so many excellent applicants upon the soil of their own country.
Let me now take the second point in the terms of reference. The Committee were also to inquire into the value of the results achieved, both economically and socially. The Committee report:
We have not considered it part of our duty to express any opinion on the general policy of land settlement.
But they could not help themselves. Every page of their Report expresses their opinion with regard to the efficacy of land settlement, and particularly land settlement in the Highlands. Some critics regard it as an inveterate prejudice on the part of the Highlander that he should prefer the hard and ungrateful soil of the land of his ancestors to what is called a fir holding system elsewhere. Such a prejudice, if it be a prejudice, may not have the approval of the theorists or of the economists, but the spirit which underlies it has stood the country and the Empire in good stead on more than one occasion. You cannot regard things
of that kind as padre items in a profit and loss account. They are what the famous historian called the imponderabilia. You cannot estimate; you cannot weigh them; but without them the country is poor indeed.
Let me state briefly what is said on page 26 of the Report of this impartial body, appointed by the Secretary of State without consultation with Scottish Members. Paragraph 40 says:
There can be no difference of opinion as to the social results of the work of land settlement in the Highlands. By taking over sheep farms land has been provided for making new settlements or for enlarging the holdings of crofters in existing townships. The result has been to thin out the worst of the congested districts, leaving more room for the older holdings. Sheep stocks have been taken over and transferred to the crofters, usually by means of a club fm m which the crofters run. Some of these clubs, which were formed in the earlier years, have paid off their loans, and the communities have reached a stage of comparative affluence. Those which commenced operations when sheep prices were high will have a struggle to pay off their loans, in spite of the fact that they got their stocks at prices much below what they cost the State, but there is no reason to believe that they will not succeed in time. The prospects of all these crofters are greatly improved as a result of the settlement policy.
I think that that is a wonderful justification of a policy which has been the policy of successive Governments for so, long. Then I come to the most difficult of all the points, and it is my last. I refer to the terms of reference which ask for "defects, if any, in the procedure." This particular part will appeal not only to Members representing the Highlands, for it is a far-reaching and important question of interest to every Member for Scotland, whether he represents the Highlands or the East or West or South of the country. The suggestion in the Report, with one dissentient voice, that of Mr. Norman Reid, is that in the South of Scotland, in what is called the Lowlands, and certain parts of my own constituency and that of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair), the benefits of the Small Holdings Act should really he abolished, and that we should go back to the old system of what is called ordinary agricultural tenure. I do not know what my colleagues from Scotland think about it, but I know what my people think, and they are wholly opposed to the suggestion.
Let me take the short memorandum which has been written by Mr. Norman Reid. Apart from the fact that he has the great qualification of being a distinguished constituent of mine, he has many other qualifications: He is a practical farmer and he was for years one of the leading members of the Land Court. He has recognised ability in agricultural pursuits, and that ability is recognised all over the world. What is his view? He demolishes the proposal. By sheer force of argument he shows that those who support that proposal have not a leg on which to stand. Let me put it in another way. Are Members in the South of Scotland really going to say that the three cardinal principles attached to the small-holding movement in Scotland in the various Acts are to be no longer in their possession? What are those three cardinal principles? The first is security of tenure. That has been regarded as a boon and a blessing all over Scotland. The second is a periodical revision of rents. Rent is first of all fixed by an impartial body called the Land Court, and every seven years that rent is periodically reviewed. The result of that satisfactory method has been that you have not got a single penny of arrears of rent in any part of Scotland where the rent has been adequately and justly fixed. Are Members from the South of Scotland to tolerate the abolition of that principle? Take the third cardinal principle, the principle which was fought for in the Land Acts of Ireland and of Scotland, namely the principle of compensation for improvements.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether he it attempting to indicate to the Committee that the proposal of the majority of the Committee, whose Report he has mentioned, is to the effect that the Land Court is not to adjudicate on the question of rent and compensation in future? If so, I draw his attention to the fact that on page 55 of the Report, in the summary of conclusions and recommendations, Recommendation No. 2 distinctly states that in the Lowland districts ordinary agricultural holdings in future are to have the right to apply to the Land Court "for adjudication on questions of rent and compensation."

Mr. MACPHERSON: That may be so, but the fact remains that they become agricultural tenants; they are no longer statutory tenants with the protection of the Small Landholdings Acts—not at all. My point is that they have no longer security of tenure; they are tenants at will, and can be turned out at any moment. The proposal now is that under the administrative power of the Board of Agriculture, under Part I of the Act of 1919, the Board should buy the land, and should divide that land, having equipped it and prepared it for entry, among prospective smallholders, at a rent to be fixed by them—not by the Land Court but by the Board. My hon. Friend shakes his head and presumably disagrees. Does my hon. Friend admit that security of tenure goes, and that the tenant in the South of Scotland in the future will be a tenant at will?

Mr. JOHNSTON: No.

Mr. MACPHERSON: He becomes a tenant at will of the Board of Agriculture; and the moment it is known that a public body like the Board of Agriculture is going to purchase land for the settlement of small landholders, immediately the land will go up in price and the moment it goes up in price the Board of Agriculture, if it is a business body, must charge proportionately higher rents. Everything that the Board does will cost proportionately more, and the result will be that, in order to provide an economic rent, the small landholder will be called upon to pay a very severe rent and one which will be a drain upon him. I am convinced that when the people of the South of Scotland realise what is proposed, they will resist the proposal to the bitter end. It is a retrograde step of the worst kind. Even England, during the last year, has insisted on the principles of security of tenure and fair rent. It surely would be a retrograde and stupid step on the part of Southern Scotland to accept this new proposal when even a great country like England, watching the experience of Scotland and knowing its own experience, has recently demanded fair rent and security of tenure as matters of right.
Not only would the benefits under the Act be taken away from the southern smallholder, but another difficulty would be created. This proposal creates the difficulty of having, as it were, three
competing tenants in the same country. There is the crofter or the old landholder who gets considerable benefit. Then you have the statutory small tenant at the present moment with benefits not so great, and you would create a third class of tenant, who would eye with suspicion and no great gratitude the advantages which the Mother of Parliaments gave to his friends in the same county or the same country. The whole proposal is preposterous and ridiculous and I, for one, intend to resist it to the bitter end. I come to the fourth point in the terms of reference, namely, the question of rating. I know that I am about to tread on very delicate ground in dealing with that subject but I am not proposing any new legislation. I wish to deal with the administration of rating under the Board of Agriculture at the present moment. I know that the proposal of the committee, if carried into effect, would require legislation. Under the Small Holdings Acts the crofter or smallholder is exempt from rates upon his land or upon improvement on his buildings. The proposal now is that he should no longer be exempt, and it is suggested that this proposal should apply to the whole of Scotland. I know that such a proposal will be resisted—

The CHAIRMAN: Surely that is a matter which requires legislation.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I am sorry. I realised that I might be trespassing. All I have to say is that that proposal also has been completely destroyed by Mr. Norman Reid. He points out that it would be a breach of faith—

The CHAIRMAN: I have no doubt that the gentleman's opinion carries weight with the right hon. Gentleman, but it cannot be cited here.

Mr. MACPHERSON: This is the minority report. I quite realise the difficulty, and I gave the Chair fair warning of the danger. However, I do not need to go any further. All I wish to do is to direct atention to pages 62 and 63 of the Report as giving proof of the wonderful effect which the adminitration of the Board of Agriculture has had in connection with housing.
Most of the housing had been erected in the belief that it would not be assessed for rating purposes and, at this date, to bring it in for that purpose, would be something like a breach of faith"—

The CHAIRMAN: Really, the right hon. Gentleman, who is no novice in these matters, must be aware that he is out of Order. Indeed he began by saying that he knew it would be out of order to discuss a certain matter, and he then proceeds with various circumlocutions to do so.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: On the point of Order. I gather from the right hon. Gentleman that what he is arguing is not that there should be legislation, but that there should not be legislation. Is that not in order?

The CHAIRMAN: Certainly not. Hon. Members cannot discuss legislation in Committee of Supply, either for or against.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Without referring to legislation, I thought I could repeat the comment made upon the effects of the administrative action of the Board of Agriculture in reference to existing housing in the North of Scotland. I can say—and these are my final words—that the report conclusively points to the fact that there has been a revolution in the social we fare of the people of the Highlands, brought about by the administrative action of the Board of Agriculture, in regard to housing. I have endeavoured to bring the notice of the Committee, as cogently as I could, the chief points of this recent report. It is in my judgment the most important report issued by the Board of Agriculture for many a long day. If it means anything, it surely is a justification for the small-holding movement in Scotland. I beg of the Secretary of State to regard it in that light, and to do everything which is humanly possible to settle desirable applicants upon holdings in their native land.

Mr. WILLIAM ADAMSON: I expected that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland would speak at this juncture.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I came in to hear the Secretary of State, and I object very much to this method of procedure. I do not often take part in discussion on Scottish Estimates. In fact this is the first time I have ever opened my mouth upon such an occasion, but I ant interested in Scotland from many points of view, principally because of the magnificent sailors who come from
Scotland, and I would like to hear what the Secretary of State has to say on these matters. At Question Time I have noticed several of my hon. Friends pressing for facilities for the settlement of ex-soldiers in Scotland, and I have heard the most unsatisfactory and evasive replies from the Secretary of State. I as an English Member, support my Scottish friends on both sides of the House in this matter, and I protest against the silence of the right hon. Gentleman.

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Sir John Gilmour): It is within the recollection of the Committee that the practice has been to submit these reports to the Committee, and it is for hon. Members, if they have any criticisms to make upon my Department, to express those criticisms. T shall reply to them afterwards.

Mr. MACPHERSON: It is only right that I should say that my right hon. Friend very courteously told me that he did not propose to open the Debate, but that at the end of the discussion he would reply.

Mr. MACLEAN: We have on the Treasury Bench four representatives of the Government—the Secretary of State for Scotland, the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the Lord Advocate and the Vice-Chamberlain of the Household. It has always been customary for a Minister representing Scotland to take part in the opening stage of the Debate on these occasions, explaining the report submitted and leaving it to one of the other representatives to intervene about the middle of the Debate while, generally, a third Government representative closed the Debate. That practice gives the Government a chance of offering explanations and replies at three different periods, so that hon. Members know the position and the attitude which they are taking up on the various points raised. It is treating hon. Members from Scotland in rather a cavalier fashion if we are told that we must discuss all these questions and that the Secretary of State will rise perhaps at 11 o'clock to-night and reply for half-an-hour on the whole discussion. Without casting any reflection on the right hon. Gentleman, a reply of that kind is absurd.

Mr. SHINWELL: Does the attitude of the right hon. Gentleman not indicate that unless there is some criticism of the Report now before us he is going to remain silent? If that is his attitude, then no speeches should be delivered by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen on the Treasury Bench at any time. Surely it is customary for right hon. Gentlemen who are responsible for Departments of State to explain the administration of those Departments on these occasions. In this case explanations of some kind are desirable. The attitude of the right hon. Gentleman amounts to this—he will say nothing until hon. Members on this side have spoken. Then he is to come along with a thundering reply, and, I suppose, in the event of any further observations being offered from this side, the vivacious Under-Secretary of State is to come along and deal further blows to hon. Members here and below the gangway.

Mr. HARDIE: He clubs the wounded.

Mr. SHINWELL: Then, possibly, the Lord Advocate will wind up on the legal issues involved. It is a most amazing situation. We can appreciate the attitude of the Lord Advocate who is now, I observe, running away from the Committee. The Lord Advocate will never stand up to a situation. He rarely speaks here. Is it suggested that he has so many responsibilities of a legal kind that he cannot undertake the responsibility for this Report or any part of it? I invite the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State to stand up for his Report here and now and offer such explanations as he can. If his statement is regarded as satisfactory it may be unnecessary to pursue the matter, but he should not say to us, in effect, "There is the Report; take it or leave it."

The CHAIRMAN: I think if the hon. Member wishes to pursue that subject he ought to move that I report Progress and ask leave to sit again.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. SHINWELL: I appreciate the advice which you offer, Sir, but I do not propose to accept it at this stage. I would direct your attention to the fact that on a previous occasion when hon. Members on these benches desired to discuss the Scottish Estimates, a protest
was made on the ground that no report was available. Am I to understand that on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman would not have spoken because the Report was not there, and—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Gentleman is not now discussing the Vote, but the silence of right hon. Members. The usual and, in fact, the only way in which that can he brought into order is by a Motion to report Progress, but that can afterwards be negatived or withdrawn by leave. On the Vote before the Committee, the discussion must be confined to the Vote.

Mr. SHINWELL: I am afraid that I have not made myself quite clear. I am merely inviting the right hon. Gentleman to offer a few observations on this Report. I should sit down at once if the right hon. Gentleman would now indicate his desire to respond to my invitation and that of other hon. Members on this side.

Mr. JOHNSTON: May I appeal to the right hon. Gentleman, the Secretary of State for Scotland, in the exceptional circumstances in which he finds himself, at least to make a statement on the subject of this Report now l The right hon. Gentleman who initiated the discussion to-day gave one interpretation of the meaning of the majority Report. There are other interpretations of that Report, and there are different views held as to its meaning in all parts of the House. It is surely right, therefore, that we should know the opinion of the. Secretary of State upon a matter on which he has two Reports before him, namely, a majority and a minority Report; and as there are at least two or three different interpretations of the vital principle underlying this Report, surely the right hon. Gentleman should not only tell this Committee but the people of Scotland precisely what, in the opinion of his Department, this Report means and what action, if any, he proposes to take upon it. It seems to me that without the Secretary of State making a statement, we are discussing the subject of agriculture in Scotland in vacuo. In regard to the interpretations of the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), if he will turn up the summary of conclusions and recommendations
of the majority Report, on page 55, he will find that in Sub-section (2) of paragraph 112 they state:
That in future smallholders should be settled by the State in Lowland districts as tenants. … with. … the right to apply to the Land Court for adjudication on question; of rent and compensation (paragraph 63).
Then, if he will refer to paragraph 63, he will see that the tenants—

Mr. MACPHERSON: There is no security of tenure.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In that paragraph 63 the right hon. Gentleman will find that it states:
The tenants on the Board's estates are at present settled on landholder's tenure. … acid it seems to us that they should afford sufficient security of tenure and reasonable conditions of tenancy for tenants of the Board in Scotland.
When we turn to page 13, we find out exactly what landholder's tenure is. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wilt give me his attention.

Mr. MACPHERSON: My colleague the hon. and gallant Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Sir A. Sinclair) is following the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. JOHNSTON: I am not so much interested in the right hon. Gentleman's colleague as in the right hon. Gentleman himself. On page 13, paragraph 17, we are told:
Holders. … whether on properties owned 103 private landlords or by the Board, are registered as landholders by the Scottish Land Covert. … In the main, these benefits are:
(1) Fixity of tenure, subject to the observance of certain statutory conditions."
If my interpretation is wrong—

Mr. SHINWELL: That is the Government's interpretation.

Mr. JOHNSTON: If my interpretation is wrong, at least we ought to have it authoritatively so stated by the Secretary of State I know that there are large numbers of people who are quite as interested in agriculture in Scotland as the right hon. Gentleman who think that my interpretation is right, and I know that the Lord Advocate, who knows as much about the law as does the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty, thinks that he is wrong. Here we have
the Report of an important Committee, long awaited, composed of men of great skill and knowledge. The Secretary of State for Scotland to-day offers no explanation of that Report or as to the Government's intentions towards it, whether they will support the majority or the minority contention, and I suggest that it is merely playing with the interests of agriculture in Scotland for the right hon. Gentleman and his assistants, the other representatives of the Scottish Office, simply to throw this Report into the Vote Office and allow hon. Members on all sides to get up and make what interpretations they may care of various paragraphs, while the Secretary of State, on the most important subject before Scotland, sits like "Brer Rabbit" and says nothing. I trust that the right hon. Gentleman, before the Debate proceeds further, will at any rate give us his interpretation as to what is the essential recommendation of the majority Report of the Committee and as to what action, if any, the Government propose to take upon that Report.

Major Sir ARCHIBALD SINCLAIR: I cannot help hoping that the Secretary of State for Scotland will yield to the unusually flattering requests that have been made by his colleagues of all parties and participate even at this early stage in the Debate. I am only a very junior Member, and I have no wish to speak in front of the Secretary of state or of the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), and I think it would be greatly to the advantage of the Committee if the Secretary of State for Scotland would intervene now and tell us what his policy is, first, on these Reports which we desire to discuss. We do not want to discuss them merely academically, nor particularly do we want to discuss the opinion of these gentlemen, eminent as they are, as expressed in the Reports. We wish, in Committee of Supply, to discuss the administration of the Government, and we wish to have some report by the Secretary of State on his administration for the past year.

The CHAIRMAN: Does the hon. Baronet propose to move to report Progress?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: No, but I want to say one other word, if you will allow me, Sir, before continuing my remarks on the general subject. I have been in the House a very few years, but on every occasion of the discussion of Scottish Estimates I have heard the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary either open with a statement or else speak immediately after the first speaker. I invite the right hon. Gentleman to do so now. If he does not respond, I must continue my remarks.

Mr. HARDIE: It is a most unusual occurrence that when such a general request is made for the Minister to speak, it is not complied with. Is it because there are none of the Leaders of the Liberal party here?

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. Baronet is in possession of the Committee.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: My right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) is our leader on this occasion. I will take, first, the point which was raised by my right hon. Friend and commented upon by the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston), who intimated that he was not interested in what I had to say on this question, but I think I can resolve all his doubts. I think it is absolutely clear that my right hon. Friend was correct in the interpretation which he gave of the recommendation of the majority of the Committee on this point. The passage to which the hon. Member for Dundee referred was a mere summary of the recommendations of the Report, and, I think, a slightly misleading summary. It refers in that summary to paragraph 63, and it is absolutely clear from that paragraph, in which is contained the main recommendation of the majority, what they intend. They say:
The tenants on the Board's estates are at present settled on landholder's tenure. … It is a matter for consideration whether this is necessary, or whether they should in future be settled on the conditions applicable to ordinary agricultural holdings.
That is the proposal which we resist. These are the conditions on which the tenants of small holdings in England and Wales sit on properties owned by the State and local authorities, and they say:
It seems to us that they should afford sufficient security of tenure and reasonable conditions of tenancy for tenants of the Board in Scotland.
My right hon. Friend, my colleagues, and myself are absolutely clear that those opinions are such as we resist. The Report proceeds:
It might, however, be provided, in view of the existence in Scotland of a Land Court of which there is no counterpart in England, that the tenants of the Board should have a right to have their rents revised by the Court.
And it goes on to say that certain questions of compensation
might also be made capable of reference for settlement by the Land Court.
These, however, are only possibilities, but the proposal itself is definite, and what they do say is that the existing tenure in England should afford sufficient security. That is what is definite; there is no "might" about that:
It seems to us that they should afford sufficient security of tenure and reasonable conditions of tenancy for tenants of the Board in Scotland.
It is that opinion with which we profoundly disagree.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the hon. and gallant Gentleman refer to paragraph 65, on page 36?

Sir A. SINCLAIR: That reads:
We refer elsewhere (p. 37) to the difficulty experienced in Scotland in removing a small landholder who fails to meet his obligations. … A much simpler and speedier process. … appears to be available in the case of statutory smallholders in England, which might be adopted in respect of the Board's tenants if they were holding under ordinary conditions of tenancy instead of landholder's tenure.
My hon. and learned Friend is quite right. That is a further sideline of the same thing. It is carefully put forward, and it shows that this change is advocated again on this second ground, and that it would make the removal of a smallholder easier. I can hardly believe there is any doubt left in the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, but, if there is, I would refer him to the opinion of Mr. Norman Reid, who signed the Minority Report. He has been through all these discussions from the earliest stage; he has been contributing to them, and he knows exactly what is in the minds of his fellow Commissioners. Yet he says:
I entirely disagree with the recommendations made that in future land settlement should take place in the districts referred to on other than landholders' tenure.
He goes on to say:
The proposed departure"—
about which the hon. Member for Dundee feels so much doubt—
would mean nothing else than destroying the object for which the whole Landholders' Code was enacted, videlicet, the preservation of security of tenure and compensation for improvements.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Why does the hon. Gentleman leave out the effective passage[...] I draw his attention to this sentence, which he completely missed:
To some extent in the foregoing Report provision is made for periodical revision of rent by the Land Court, and settlement by that tribunal of questions arising on out-go.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I left it out, because it is obviously governed by the sentence immediately following. The way it reads is:
To some extent in the foregoing Report provision is made for periodical revision of rent by the Land Court, and settlement by that tribunal of questions arising on out-go.
But even granted that, having mentioned that, Mr. Reid goes on:
But the proposed departure would mean nothing else than destroying the object for which the whole Landholders' Code was enacted, videlicet, the preservation of security of tenure and compensation for improvements.
Therefore, I think there can be no doubt left in the mind of the Committee as to the meaning of the Report on that point. While I am on this question of land settlement, I should like to turn to the general question of the administration of the right hon. Gentleman in respect of land settlement during the four years in which he has been responsible. There has been a growing demand for land during that time in Scotland from the sons of present smallholders, from farm servants, and from all classes of the agricultural population of Scotland. Nor is that all. At the same time, there has been great distress in pertain industries in Scotland, particularly in the mining industry. In that industry are a large number of men who, within the past 30 or 40 years, have been drawn into it from agriculture, and
still live in close contact with agricultural conditions. They are men for whom the Government are trying to find employment at the present time. A Transference Board is moving about the country trying to find industries to which to fit them. The agricultural industry is one in which, if there were a bold policy of land settlement, work might be found. These sentiments have been expressed on several occasions by hon. Members who support the Secretary of State for Scotland, such as the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) and the hon. Member for Perth (Mr. Skelton). There is this demand from the agricultural section of the population, and also this need to find employment for the men engaged in the distressed mining industry.
What is the record of this Government? I go back to the peak year, in which the greatest amount of settlement was made, the year 1922, when 737 small holdings were created. Since then, the numbers steadily declined until last year. I asked a question as to how many small holdings were likely to be constituted last year, and I was told that the number had declined from 737 to an estimated number of 148; and the hon. Member for Perth rose in his wrath from those back benches and sharply questioned the Secretary of State for Scotland as to whether there was not some mistake in the figures. Far from that representing the number, the Government failed to create anything like 148, for, on turning to the Report of the Board of Agriculture for last year, I see that the total is only 92. In these circumstances, that is a deplorable record on the part of the Government. When this Committee was appointed, I was one of those who, like my right hon. Friend, having examined the membership, thought that it was a Committee which was put up to justify inaction in land settlement. I cannot help having a sort of feeling at the back of my mind that there really was some such intention, for the Committee is unwillingly forced to recognise the good work that land settlement has done in Scotland. Nevertheless, retrograde proposals find their way into their Report, though, on the whole, the effect of the Report is to show that
the social and economic results of land settlement in Scotland have been revolutionary; that the social conditions, particularly in the Highlands, have enormously improved; that a greater proportion of people are employed on the land, where land setlement has taken place, than were employed before the farms were broken up; and that the process has been in all respects a healthy one. Moreover, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out already, the cost is low as compared with the cost of settling men in other countries of the Empire.
I suggest that, where it is a little higher in the Lowlands, with increasing experience the cost could be very largely reduced by the adopt ion of certain methods which I do not think have been properly tried. For example, I think that it is clear that we want small holdings of different kinds. We want the family farm at the top, the farm which is big enough for a man to work with his family. Then we want a smaller holding, which is just economically self-supporting, and perhaps sharing in a club farm. Then we want a holding which a man can occupy and which shall be a home for him and his family, and from which he could get work of different sorts in the district; he may be a skilled ditcher, or a craftsman of some kind in agriculture, and he may be able to get work on large farms in the neighbourhood. Then we want to concentrate very much more—and I think this is true of the holdings all over Scotland—on the small lines of agriculture, such as pigs, poultry and honey. Then, I submit, we could start a colony settlement for men, perhaps of miners. I do not see why the Government should not get 24 or 36 miners and start a colony; house them well, and give them 10 acres of land each, and let them concentrate, with the assistance of the experts of the colleges of agriculture, on pigs, or poultry, or honey. Look at Northern Ireland; there, with a population of 1,250,000, they have 8,000,000 poultry, and produce 1,600 lbs. of run honey and 16.000 lbs. of honey in sections in the year. Their average is 270 birds per 100 acres of crops and pasture, as against 98 in Scotland. Cannot this be more intensively developed, especially in the lowlands of Scotland? Of course, they would have to be close to a market in a good position: it is not the sort of colony that could be
started in the wilds of Sutherland en Ross-shire. They would have to be near a market, and have suitable land. I suggest that that would be a means of finding employment and livelihood for a great many men who are now out of employment.
As regards the Highlands, the figure of £285 as the cost of settling a smallholder is the sort of figure which, far from checking us, should encourage us to go on, and should encourage the right hon. Gentleman to a more vigorous prosecution of the small-holding policy, which the Committee shows has so thoroughly justified itself. There is one point about the Highlands to which I would refer, and that is the question, which is mentioned in the Report of the Land Settlement Committee, of the position of the sheep stock clubs. It is true that they went through a very difficult time. They bought their stock at high prices in the very worst time. I have in my mind those great sheep farms which were taken over in Sutherland, and I appeal to the Secretary of State to take into serious consideration the proposal which has been made that the terms of the repayment of their loans should be made easier. I see in the Report of the Board of Agriculture that in some cases the period has already been extended from 10 to 15 years, and I would strongly urge the right hon. Gentleman to take that into consideration in regard to some of these other farms, particularly those in Sutherland. The men are doing well, and the sheep are as good as they were in the old days, when they were on the large farms and looked after by large farmers. The economic conditions have been against the men, and if they are given this kind of help to tide them over the crucial years, it will greatly lighten their burden, and I have no doubt that they will make good. I do not want to say anything more or land settlement except to impress on the Secretary of State for Scotland the real need of meeting the land hunger in the Highlands of Scotland.
The old Adam crops up every now and then in this report of the Land Settlement Committee. You see them digging their toes in as they are apparently dragged along, reluctantly and against their will, to take a new and fresh and snore hopeful view of land settlement
than they ever intended to. They dig their toes in occasionally, and say it is yet rather doubtful whether the men will be able to make it pay, and that it will still need time to see whether the results will really justify the hopes entertained, but, all the same, you see it clearly stated that the men are doing well in the most difficult circumstances. Then they say there are some signs of slackening in the demands. In one paragraph they say there are signs of a new feeling on the part of the younger men. I am sure those who know the Highlands best know perfectly well that there is no slackening in t he demand for land. The demand for land is keen and active all over the Highlands, as is shown in the Report of the Board of Agriculture. In their Reports for the last three years they say the average number of new applications for land is more than 500 a year, and this at a time when men are being settled at the rate of only 150 a year. The demand for land is overtaking the supply instead of the supply overtaking the demand, and therefore I appeal to the Secretary of State to tackle this question far more vigorously and with an absolutely fresh outlook.
There are two other points of importance to which I would refer. The Board of Agriculture state in their Report that the decrease in their expenditure lies under two heads, one the grants towards the cost of drainage schemes for the improvement of agricultural land, and the other the grants in respect of the maintenance expenditure of agricultural colleges. There could not be two branches of their expenditure in which it was more unfortunate to economise at the present time. With regard to drainage in 1925 the Scottish National Conference on agriculture found the need for drainage to be the most urgent of all agricultural needs in Scotland. They made a number of recommendations. They urged that in future grants should be giver for drainage not merely in order to relieve unemployment but purely for the sake of the improvement of the land, and, therefore, that it should not be made a condition of a grant that the man should engage unemployed men but that he should be allowed to employ more skilled men. Another, and an obviously far more important recommendation, was that more funds should be provided, so that the work could go forward at a
greater speed—that more drive should be put into drainage work in Scotland. The right hon. Gentleman graciously assented to the first recommendation, which was quite a useful one, and it is now no longer compulsory to engage unemployed men. That is a very good thing and I gratefully support the right hon. Gentleman in that decision. But as regards the amount of money given for the work, far from having increased it has fallen by two-thirds, not fallen to two-thirds but fallen to only one-third, of the amount that was given before the conference. The Board of Agriculture, in referring to that in their Report, say:
The Board were authorised to announce a similar scheme for the year 1927–28, but owing to financial stringency the funds available were limited to just under £11,000.
Four or five years ago, before this Government came into office, between a sum of £30,000 and £40,000 was being spent on this service which is of such value to Scotland. Not only is this decrease deplorable, but the system of allocating grants gives rise to the widest dissatisfaction all over Scotland. Wherever I go I meet complaints that certain large farmers get grants and the small men are left out. To some extent this is inevitable, owing to the terms of the scheme itself. The grant is for one-third of the cost of labour and materials. A large farmer employs a staff of men to do the work and buys his materials, and then gets one-third of the cost of the whole work. The smallholder, who does the work himself, gets nothing for his labour, and only one-third of the cost of the material. Very often he finds it extremely difficult to get even that. I am told that smallholders have to send in their applications time after time even for that small grant and then are turned down.
Another point is that not all the money available is spent. This is very largely due to the fact that the people who apply do not get an answer to their applications. They have to wait months for a reply. Only in April I was speaking to a man in Caithness who asked me, "Is this scheme coming along? I applied before Christmas and I wrote again in the early part of the spring, and I have been told that my application will he considered, but I have not yet heard
anything, although I wrote again the other day to say that I must know, as I must be getting on with the work. I have not yet heard whether I am to get the grant or not." Very often when they are at last informed that they can have the grant there is no time left to make the necessary arrangements. That explains why it is that the Board of Agriculture say in their report that not all the money available is spent. If the men got prompt answers to their applicacations and were told, "You can have so much money, go ahead with the work" the whole of the money would be expended—and a great deal more if it were available. As regards the position of the smallholder I suggest that the grant ought to be given in proportion to the amount of work actually done That ought to be made the sole criterion—apart from whether the man has employed labour or has done the work himself, or whether he is a large farmer or a small farmer. Really the simplest way would be for the Board of Agriculture to give the materials free of charge to the smallholder. Just give the materials free of charge to the smallholders, and let them do the work themselves. I discussed that with smallholders and I know that that would meet their views and would be regarded as a very great improvement on the present scheme. Before I leave the question of drainage I would like to say, although I am not going to deal with this point at any length, that all over Scotland there are large areas of land which are exposed to flood and are seriously in need of large drainage measures. In that respect we are just as badly off as they are in England. In England there has been an inquiry and there has been legislation, and I want to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what I asked him last year, and that is whether there is any prospect that we in Scotland shall have legislation to enable drainage areas to be delimited and drainage boards constituted. As to the other economy which the Board of Agriculture has effected, which has been made on the grants to agricultural colleges, I regard that as a most disastrous economy.

Mr. MAXTON: And the veterinary colleges.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: I shall confine myself to the case of the agricultural
colleges, though it is quite true that the same thing applies to the veterinary colleges. In January, 1926, the Secretary of State for Scotland intimated to the governors of those colleges that in future the Treasury grant would be reduced to one-third of the net expenditure of the colleges and that the remainder would have to be provided by local contributions. The governors of all the colleges carefully considered what means were to be employed to raise this money and sent a memorandum to the Secretary of State. The Western and the Eastern Colleges sent in a joint memorandum, and the Northern College, as its conditions were rather different from those of the other two, sent in a memorandum of its own. That was in April, 1926. In spite of the importance of this matter, they received no reply at all. However, they proceeded loyally to carry out the proposals which they had made in the memorandum. They had made certain proposals for reducing their local contributions as much as they could and for cutting down their expenditure as much as they could. They were trying to meet the Secretary of State's view, but at the same time they were pointing out how difficult the position was for them, and how the work they were carrying on would be crippled. The North of Scotland College, of course, had particular difficulties. Hon. Members must realise the difficulty of raising money in those Highland counties, with their sparsely populated districts and their almost insignificant rateable value. In Sutherland a penny rate raises only £400. Having met with those difficulties, they sought another interview with the Secretary of State, at which they handed him a memorandum. Again they received no reply to the views which were put farward in the memorandum.
In December last, they forwarded a further memorandum to the Secretary of State with a request for an interview. Again they had no reply—no reply to the memorandum, no reply to the arguments it contained, and no reply to the request for an interview. At last the estimates have been fixed, and fixed without any consultation with the governors of the colleges. In the case of the North of Scotland College an immediate restriction of its activities is involved at a time when it was never more vital that we should be making an advance in the direction of research and
education and helping smallholders and small farmers generally over this time of great depression in the industry. This restriction must be partially effected in the present year, but if there be no modification of the Treasury demands, under which the reduction in grant gets worse next year and worse still the year after, I am informed by the Chairman and Secretary of the North of Scotland College that work in the crofting areas will have to be altogether abandoned. This is of the utmost value at a time when it is more needed than ever it was before in the history of those colleges. One of the worst features of this embroglio is the fact that the governors have been prevents d from being allowed adequately to remunerate their staff.

Sir J. GILMOUR: dissented.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: The Secretary for Scotland shakes his head, and therefore I shall be compelled to read the actual letters which have been written by the Board of Agriculture on this subject. An application for an increase of salary was made by Mr. George Donald in a letter on the 31st of January, 1924, and the Governors of the North of Scotland College recommended that Mr. Donald's application should be granted. The reply of the Board of Agriculture stated that they would only agree to a maximum of £250 of salary in Mr. Donald's case and refused to permit the moderate maximum of 300 requested by the Governors.
There was another application for an increase of salary from Mr. F. W. F. Hendry and the reply was:
The Board regretted they could not see their way to consider individual applications fur increases of salary meantime.
Another application was made for additional clerical assistance for the Director of County Work and the reply of the Board was:
There was submitted a letter of 29th November, 1927, from the Board of Agriculture fir Scotland regretting they were unable to agree to the proposal for the appointment of an additional junior clerk and typist in the County Work Department.
Those are cases in which the Board of Agriculture actually refused to allow the Governors to pay the remuneration which they considered adequate to two of their officers in the Northern College of Agriculture. On this question of salaries
the Association of County Staffs has never been consulted, and the revised scale of salaries is very unsatisfactory. There are other methods of putting the revised scale into effect, and that is just a point which a discussion with the Association of County Staffs would have put right immediately. In Scotland, these officers cannot rise to a salary of more than £500, whereas the same organisation officers in England can rise to £800 a year, which means that in Scotland we lose a great many of our best men who are attracted across the border on account of the higher salaries paid. I think this is very unfair to those officers who serve in Scotland, and my view is that they should have the same maximum amount of remuneration as similar officers have in England. I know that certain salaries were agreed between the Northern College Governors and the Association of County Staffs and that the Board have refused to carry them into effect.
Another important point is that higher salaries should be allowed in special cases, and those officers who are really valuable men should have better prizes offered to them than are allowed at this moment under the £500 maximum. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to consider the advisability of taking into consultation the governors of the colleges on this wider question, and to tell me whether he is prepared to reconsider the Treasury cuts and give an answer to the Memoranda with which these officers have been plying the right hon. Gentleman for the last two years. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consult with the Association of County Staffs on this vexed question of salaries and superannuation, and consider the case of the county organisers, because these men are doing work of the highest value to agriculture at the present time. It is the hope of the agricultural community that the Government will exploit scientific research to the utmost in order to get all the advantage they can out of it. It must be remembered that in the future we are not going to have less but greater foreign competition.
The tendency at the present moment is for more land to come into cultivation in Canada, and we shall have increased exports from South America, Northern Africa, and Eastern Russia and
Siberia. Our only hope is to adapt ourselves to improved conditions and concentrate on those forms of agriculture in which we have a preferential advantage in quality and freshness. It is of the first importance that we should do our utmost to develop our agriculture by all the means which science can put into our hands. We have now within our reach the greatest possible means of giving every encouragement to scientific work, and we ought especially to encourage young men and women to take up this scientific work. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Major Elliot) sits with me on the Empire Marketing Board, and he knows that one of the things which at the present moment is hampering research is the lack of trained scientific research workers. These people are not all doing research work, but they are doing work which is hardly less important, and we want to attract into the scientific work the best brains among our young men and women. At the present time, the teaching profession and the medical profession are overcrowded. I think the Government ought to see to it that better remuneration should be paid to those engaged in scientific work in order to encourage more people to come into that profession. I hope the Secretary of State for Scotland will give me a reply on the point which I have raised relating to consultation with the governors of the colleges and the Association of Staffs.

Sir HARRY HOPE: After the criticism which has been made by hon. Members opposite, I think the Secretary of State for Scotland has every reason to be satisfied with the last year's work done by the Board of Agriculture. There has been quite a paucity of criticism from hon. Members on the Opposition side, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman may be fairly congratulated upon the success of the last year's work of his Department. I have never been of the opinion that we ought to depend very much upon the work of the Board of Agriculture. Agriculture in Scotland can do a good deal on its own behalf, and it has done a good deal in the past. I speak as one who has had some connection with agriculture in Scotland, and while I welcome the efforts of the Board of Agriculture in some directions, I often think that some of the criticisms which
have been made to the effect that a good deal of money which is now spent might be spared in connection with some of the work is not altogether wrong.
There are one or two directions in which I think the Board of Agriculture could do more. In the first place, cooperation offers a very fruitful field for more activity. No doubt agriculturists in Scotland in the past have been rather slow in adopting co-operative methods, and we have suffered accordingly. I see in the Estimates that there is going to be a Government grant of £4,000 a year and an additional grant of £500 a year, that is pound for pound of the amount spent by the agricultural organisations. In this way the Board are doing something to help the growth and development of co-operation in Scotland. I think they might do more good by spending a little more of the money at their disposal in the direction of promoting co-operation. If the Government would spend more upon this kind of development I am sure they would find that it would be one of the best things they could do to advance the interests of those connected with the agricultural industry.
Another branch of activity is that of agricultural education and research, and this is a subject of great importance, and it is one in which we certainly ought not to be niggardly. I think the Secretary of State for Scotland did an extremely wise thing when he asked for the assistance of Mr. J. IL Campbell, late of the Department of Agriculture in Ireland. There is no man better qualified to give advice on this subject than Mr. Campbell, and that gentleman's record in Ireland is such a splendid one that I am sure my right hon. Friend did the best possible thing in asking him to give us his counsel. Mr. Campbell recommended greater en-ordination among our agricultural counties, and it is in that direction that more progress ought to be made.
6.0 p.m.
I would like to say a word or two in support of what has been said by the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) who complained of the way in which the agricultural colleges are being treated. It is a perfect scandal that the officers of these colleges are treated in such a niggardly way, because the policy adopted by the Board of Agriculture discourages our best men
in Scotland, and it is tending to drive our most promising men from the Scottish to the English colleges. I think we are apt to lose very much in this direction unless my right hon. Friend is able to use more money for this purpose. The Secretary for Scotland ought to use his influence with the Treasury to obtain a larger grant in order that more reasonable and adequate salaries may be provided for the teaching staffs. It is no use settling men upon the land unless you do something to enable them to adopt the best possible methods to carry on their industry. That is an absolute truism, and, therefore, to cut down expenditure on this essential part of the service is most unwise; and, whether the money comes direct from the Board of Agriculture Vote or whether it can be obtained by means of a Treasury grant, I do hope that the standing scandal which presently exists will be put right, and that our colleges will be enabled to pay adequate and encouraging wages to their staffs.
The right hon. Gentleman who initiated this Debate very properly referred to the large number of men seeking small holdings who are on the waiting list. I think tin number on the waiting list is something like 8,300 and I understand that the greater proportion of that large number of deserving men who are still wanting holdings are located in what is called the Highland district of the country. It is no use putting these men into small holdings unless they have reasonable transport facilities for the purpose of the sale of their produce, and, therefore my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) is bringing forward a very wise and proper suggestion when he urges the provision of better transport facilities in tie Highlands of Scotland. I know perfectly well the intense love of their own particular districts which men have in the Highlands. They do not want to be transferred to other parts, but want to get land in their own country to begin with, and in their own part of their own county—almost in their own strath.
That love of country is most commendable, and I certainly hope that some progress will be made in settling these men. As I have said, however, it is no use
doing that unless they can be provided with proper transport facilities, and, in many cases, the road to their district is the sea. It is surely only right that some money should be provided, perhaps through the Ministry of Transport, to provide means of transport for them. In conclusion, I should like to say that I think the Nairne Report is a very sensible and wise Report. It confirms the opinion of some of us who were in this House when the Act of 1911 was passed, and who thought then, as we think now, that this problem of land settlement falls into two divisions, that affecting the Lowlands and that affecting the Highlands. The Nairne Report divides the subject on these lines, and the Committee recognise that the crofterisation of the Lowlands of Scotland is an absolute fallacy, as Lord Rosebery told us when the Bill was going through. In the Highland districts, however, there is the strong attachment to the land to which I have referred. I hope that these ex-service men will get farms, and that, with such means of assistance as those I have mentioned, they will be able to make a success of them.

Mr. W. ADAMSON: I was disappointed that the Secretary of State for Scotland did not rise to give us an explanation of his Estimate before other Members of the House took part in the Debate. I think that, if he had done so, it would have saved a considerable amount of the time which has been taken up in discussing one point that has been dealt with in the Report of the Nairne Committee on Land Settlement. My hon. Friend the Member for Dundee (Mr. Johnston) and the hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) have taken an opposite view of the recommendations of the Nairne Committee on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson), but I am bound to admit that I think that the right hon. Gentleman is right in his interpretation of the Committee's recommendations. They have recommended that in future small holdings shall be settled by the State in the Lowlands of Scotland on the conditions applicable to ordinary agricultural holdings, with the addition of the right to apply to the Land Court on questions of rent and compen-
sation. That is a proposal of a far-reaching character, and, if the Secretary of State and the Government are going to give effect to it, it will undoubtedly make a huge difference between the smallholder in the Highlands, or the present smallholder in the Lowlands, and the future smallholder who may be given land by the Scottish Board of Agriculture, and I think that, once the proposal is fully understood, it will lead to a considerable amount of discussion in Scotland. One can understand the object that the Committee had in view in making such a proposal. I believe that they were trying to cure one of the weaknesses of the present Small Holdings Act, but I think that they could have got their cure in quiet another way than by a proposal of this kind, which undoubtedly, as I have said, will place the future smallholder who may get a holding from the Scottish Board of Agriculture on an entirely different footing from the smallholder in the Highlands or the present smallholdser in the Lowlands of Scotland. I hope that the Secretary of State, when he comes to reply to the criticisms that have been made during the discussion, will deal with that particular point. I think it would have been a great advantage if he had opened this discussion, and, in doing so, had dealt with this point, which has been the cause of so much discussion among the Members of the Committee already. I hope that, before the Debate finishes, we shall hear what he has to say about this matter and what his intentions are.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty, as has already been stated by the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope), was very liberal in his praise of certain parts of the Estimate. There were one or two points in regard to which he wanted to speed the machine, but, on the whole, his criticism was very favourable. There are a few points with which I want briefly to deal. In the first place, I shall be glad if the Secretary of State, when he comes to reply, will give us some reason why such a small sum of money is being spent on small holdings this year as compared with last year. When there are still 8,000 applicants whose desire for holdings it has not yet been possible to satisfy, it is simply tragic that we are spending £100,000 less on small holdings this year
than we did last year. I think the Secretary of State will have some difficulty in convincing the Members of the Committee that under existing conditions, with an army of unemployed in every branch of British industry, when men are clamouring for employment everywhere and when 8,000 applicants, some of whom have been waiting for a considerable number of years, are clamouring at his door for holdings, £100,000 less should be spent on small holdings this year than last year. Another thing that I should like the Secretary of State to explain is why the question of land drainage is not being pushed forward with more energy. The hon. Baronet the Member for Caithness said that it was the most urgent of all the questions connected with the Scottish Board of Agriculture. I cart hardly go that length—

Sir A. SINCLAIR: May I explain that I was quoting the Report of the Scottish National Conference in 1925? I said that they had put it first.

Mr. ADAMSON: I understood that the hon. Baronet was quoting his own personal view, and, as I was pointing out, I can scarcely subscribe to its being the most important of all. There are other things that I think are of more importance, but, at the same time, the question of land drainage is a very important and urgent one, and I hope that the Secretary of State, when he comes to reply, will give us some reason why it is not being pushed forward with more energy, and, if possible, a promise that it will be pushed forward with more energy in the very near future.
Another of the things I should particularly like the right hon. Gentleman to deal with is the development of co-operation. I believe that is a question of great value to agriculture. The hon. Member for Forfar said he thought the farming community could do a great deal for themselves, and that is the reason why so little criticism has been made of the Estimate. I am not intimately connected with the farming community, but I understand it has been passing through a very critical time, indeed. The farmers I know complain bitterly of the times they are passing through, and even go the length of saying that, unless there is some improvement, agriculture, even in Scotland, is going to be in a very bad
way. One of the things that would help agriculture out of its difficulties is a system of co-operation to a far wider extent than was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty. We should have co-operation in all aspects of agriculture as well as with regard to the milk supply. I believe very strongly that if agriculturists were encouraged by the Government to build up a complete system of co-operation, which would enable them to eliminate the middle n an, it would be of great advantage to them.
I do not think we could discuss a more important subject than land development. We are facing one of the most critical situations in industry that our people have ever been called upon to face. All the heavier industries in which we have made our money, with which we were able to purchase our food from other countries, in the past 100 years are in a very depressed condition indeed. Take mining as an example. My own district is typical of other parts of the coalfield. Up to 1924 we employed more than 30,000 people in the Fife and Ross and Clackmannan coalfield. To-day, after four years have passed, we are employing little more than 20,000. One-third of the mining population has been cut down. That gives an indication of the condition of the industry all over the British coalfield and of the position in other departments of British industry—shipbuilding, iron and steel and engineering. During the same period that we were building up these heavy industries and putting ourselves in the position of practically supplying the world with these commodities, we were entirely neglecting our agricultural development. To-day It e are facing a different world. Our people are competing for markets with the very people we used to supply. The time has gone by when we can ever hope again to be the workshop of the world. I am not one of those who are so pessimistic that they believe we shall not be able to take our share of the world's industry, but we shall not take such a big share as we formerly did.
With a condition of affairs like that we shall require to give to the question of land development far more consideration in future than we have ever done in the past. During the last 80 or 100 years, the acreage under cultivation and
the number of persons employed on the land have been going down. That was a bad policy for us to pursue even during times of industrial prosperity, but during such a period as we are in now, it will be a fatal policy if we continue to pursue it. We have now reached a stage when we are told we are not making as much money in industry as will enable us to purchase the food supplies to which we have been accustomed from other countries. We are importing four-fifths of our food supply. We are not making as much money in industry as will enable us to do that. Our imports, we are told, are exceeding our exports, even after we have taken into account our invisible imports. If that is the case, we are touching our capital, and a nation that is touching its capital is in a very dangerous condition indeed, and we require to consider the question of land development from a far bigger point of view than is dealt with in this Estimate. This will only touch the fringe of the difficulty. It is time the Secretary of State and the Government were awakened to the fact that 'we are in a critical condition and that if there is no occupation in industry for our men and women, we are obliged to do something to provide for them in agriculture. There is room there, because if we are not to be able to purchase food from other people, we shall have to grow it for ourselves. Economic conditions will drive us there. I hope the Secretary of State and the Government are going to take the matter into serious consideration and deal with our agricultural difficulties from a far wider angle than has yet been the case.
I said I did not agree with what I thought was the hon. Baronet's own personal opinion that land drainage was the most important aspect of agriculture. The most important aspect of agriculture in Scotland is that we need to remove the difficulties which stand in the way of land settlement, and which have gradually drained Scotland of its agricultural population. I have a figure here dealing with the small Islands of Rum, Canna, Eigg and Muck, and between 1821 and 1921 the population of these islands has fallen from 1,620 to 515. Less than a third of the population is left. The places of these men and their dependants have been largely taken by deer. That
is one of the difficulties standing in the way of the development of agriculture. That same reason applies all over the Highlands. The population has been reduced by that means. It is a very dangerous evil to any nation, and we require to deal with it. There are other difficulties that stand in the way of our people having ready access to the land. It is the duty of the Government to remove these difficulties, and to make way for a very much larger proportion of our men and women finding the means of life on the land at our disposal. There is work there for a far bigger number of our menfolk and womenfolk, and I hope the Secretary of State and the Government will face the situation in the spirit in which it ought to be faced, and make the necessary arrangements for the return of a considerable number of the men and women who are walking the streets because they cannot get employment.

Sir ROBERT HAMILTON: I have been delighted to hear the hon. Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) and the ex-Secretary for Scotland lauding agricultural co-operation. There is no question, to my mind, that what is wanted in agriculture more than anything else is cooperative marketing. There is nothing so badly wrong with the industry itself. What is wrong is the way we are putting our produce on the market. The farmer to-day finds a very different state of affairs from what he had in years gone by. If he cannot put his products on the market in a cheap, reasonable and attractive way, he cannot compete in the world's markets. He has to compete with very keen and active opponents. The more publicity can be given to this idea of co-operation the better.
The hon. Member for Forfar congratulated the Secretary of State for Scotland because the Board of Agriculture had done so much to promote cooperation in agriculture. I, on the other hand, would rather say that they had not done half enough. They ought to have done a great deal more than has been done. The hon. Member for Forfar knows very well that the agricultural community are not very easy to convince on this matter. It takes a good deal of education to make the farmers realise that it is really in co-operation where
their best future lies. Therefore, the more publicity that can be given by Members on every side of the House, and particularly, as I have said in years gone by to the Secretary of State for Scotland, by the Board of Agriculture, the better. Whatever the Board of Agriculture can do to further the question of co-operative marketing should be done. I, for one, am not content to say that what has been done in past years is enough. I hope that in future years the Board will do a great deal more. However, that is by the way.
What I really rose to speak about was the question of land settlement. I have not been very long in the House, and it has been a matter of keen regret to me that year after year, when the Scottish Estimates come up for consideration and this question of land settlement is discussed, nothing more is done, while during the past year we see that a great deal less has been done than in former years. The way that this great, vital question of settling people on the land in Scotland has been dealt with I can only call mean, miserable and petty. It not dealing with it in the way that we should deal with a great national question by merely settling 156 people in a year. This figure of 156 does not consist of all settlements, for it includes enlargements of holdings. The Secretary of State for Scotland laughs. I think I am quoting the figures correctly. And this at a time when we are setting aside millions for colonising overseas! We are setting aside millions to settle people on the land in Canada and in Australia, but the money is not spent. Could we not do a great deal better if some of those millions were spent on settling the people on the land in Scotland? £100,000 less was spent last year than in previous years. Why are we slowing down in this way?
I have got out a few figures, which, I think, will be of interest. In answer to a question put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair) a short time ago as to the number of holdings and enlargements settled since January, 1919—the answer is given in the OFFICIAL REPORT of 9th May—it is shown that, during those nine years, there was an average of 400 a year settled, whereas last year we came down to this paltry 156. Why has the average
been allowed to drop like that? Is it the policy of the Government to shut down lard settlement, or is it the policy of the Government to increase land settlement? We have only these figures to go by, and they show definitely that land settlement in Scotland has been decreasing, and we have got down to this miserable figure of 156 in the year.
We were told last year that there were 10,000 applications on the waiting list of the Board of Agriculture, but I understand that since then that list has been gone through, and a certain number of what may be called ineffective applications have been withdrawn, and that the number has been reduced to 8,326. In the Land Report that number has been further whittled down, and further ineffectives have been withdrawn. It has been reduced to 4,337. I would like to take that; number—4,337—which is given in the appendix of the Land Report, and to point out that if we go on with land settlement in Scotland at the present rate of 156 a year, it will take 29 years to work off that list. By the time that list is worked off and at the present rate at which applications are now coming in, namely, about 400 a year, there will still be 11,200 to be dealt with. The position is perfectly ridiculous. It is stated in the Land Report that it is possible that the application for land will not be as keen in the future as it has been in the past, but, as has already been said, there is nothing to indicate that the applications are not coming in. All of us who have anything to do with the Highland; of Scotland know perfectly well what a demand there is for land. As soon as land can be made available, plenty of first-rate applicants come forward for it. I have not seen the evidence which has led the Land Committee to make that suggestion, but I venture to say that it is rather contrary to the figures we have before us as to the application and as to the rate at which they are coming in.
I should like to ask the Secretary of State to tell us very definitely if it is intended to extend land settlement in Scotland or not? We have come right up against it now. We think that 156 a year is practically nothing. We know that it will cost money. The figures have been worked out by the Land Committee, and we have all been pleased and sur-
prised to find that it costs less than some of us expected. For the settlement in the crofting counties, the average figure of cost since 1912 to the present day is £263. I would ask the Committee to compare that £263, which is the cost for making a settlement in the crofting counties, with the amount that would have to be spent on the dole over the same period of time. Which is the better investment? Surely, we need not discuss further the social advantages of settling people on the land. That has already been touched upon in the course of the Debate. I think my right hon. Friend below me referred to Section 40 of the Report of the Land Committee where they say there will be no difference of opinion as to the social results of the work of land settlement in the Highlands. We all know it. Previous Reports of the Board of Agriculture have shown how successful men have been very often under very difficult conditions.
The hon. Member for Forfar rightly said that the success of land settlement depends very often upon putting men in the right place and where there is proper transport available. If you put settlers down in the wrong place and without transport available, the chances are that the settlement will be a failure, but if you give the right men half a chance in the right place, land settlement is bound to be successful. We have seen it over and over again. I ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to let us know definitely what is the policy of the Government. Do the Government intend to tackle the great scheme as it should be tackled, or are they to whittle it down as it has been whittled down in the past year?

Mr. MACQUISTEN: A very grave state of affairs has been disclosed in these speeches and in these Reports. I view with dismay the almost practical abandonment of small-holding settlements, because I am a believer, a very strong believer, in these small holdings. I have had some small personal experiences of my own, and I know how profitable it is for a man to work a little bit of land with his own hands largely for his own consumption. He has, as I have said before, the three profits then. He has the producer's profit, which in ordinary marketing circumstances is very
small—the dealer and the shopkeeper take care of that—he has the dealer's profit, which is substantial, and he has the retailer's profit, which is large, all behind the buckle of his own waistbelt. Those who work for the use and consumption of their own households succeed.
If you could get what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) pointed out, proper co-operative marketing, if you could bring the producer and consumer closer together, you would not only have solved the problem of agriculture but pretty well have solved the problem of the cost of living and the problem of civilisation. At the present moment the producer's goods are always intercepted by somebody who takes a much bigger rate off them than what the producer gets. I was talking the other day to somebody who was telling me about a certain commodity which he brings to market in respect of which there are six dealers. The dealer confessed to him that it was not the commissions, although they were 10 per cent., they made money out of. He said, "Every morning we all sell to each other and charge a commission and then it is when we sell afterwards we 'make good'. That is where the profit is." The secretary of one of the clubs in London of which I am a member asked why it was that salmon was entered at 2s., I think, in the Billingsgate record, while he was paying a charge of 2s. 6d. This was the charge contained in the official gazette, and he was calmly told that salmon was entered at the smaller price so as to enable the dealers to deal with the fishermen.
That is what is being done now in all markets. That is the real trouble. Where the question of marketing comes in, the small trader has not sufficient turnover to become a business man and learn the tricks of the trade. He is purely a producer. If he were in some co-operative association consisting of a few of the smallholders with a few commercial heads and the goods were massed together, there is no doubt there might be a very much bigger profit. In regard to eggs there was some co-operative arrangement for the assistance of the people of Orkney created by a Glasgow citizen which resulted in a large profit on Orkney eggs. They were getting 4d. a dozen for eggs in Orkney prior to the year 1925, and through a co-operative
association, which, I think, is still in being, the people in Orkney received 1s. 6d. a dozen for their eggs throughout the year. This is the result of cooperative marketing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Forfar (Sir H. Hope) hit the nail on the head regarding the Highlands when he said transport was largely at the bottom of the whole difficulty. It is no good the Board of Agriculture spending money on settlements if men are practically marooned with regard to transport both for incoming and outgoing goods. The Board of Agriculture spent £40,000 or £45,000 on an estate called Strontian. They settled a certain number of men there and enlarged some holdings. I do not think there were many of them, but the population of the district is about 500. A steamer calls there about once in 10 days and charges pretty well what it likes. There are no restrictions on its charges. It just takes up the position taken up by Highland transport practically since the War, namely, "Have you any money" "Yes." "Well, what we leave you of it is money you have made." They charge what they like. But what is the state of things at Strontian? There is neither pier nor any proper landing place. Not even a shed to protect goods such as bread, sugar or flour, which is liable to be, and often is, destroyed by the weather. There was a very large capital expenditure in buying this property, and yet not even a landing stage or place where they can shelter their stuff. The result is most unfortunate. Let me give the case of one good fellow, an ex-artilleryman with a very fine record of service, who has a nice house there. He told me that one day he had to drive sheep 22 miles to Loch Aline, and as it was along a motor road it took him a long time. He had his crop standing out, which he valued at between £40 and £50, and while he was away down came the rain and on his arrival home he found the stooks floating down the flooded river and his crop was destroyed. That was because there was no pier at Strontian. If there had been a pier he could have driven his sheep on board the boat and within an hour or two he could have got back and could have dealt with his crop.
These are the sort of things that are happening all over the Highlands. I
see that the travelling expenses, telegrams, in the Board of Agriculture cost nearly £300,000 per annum. Of that expenditure a very large part is supposed to be incurred in the Highlands. When I think how that money could be so admirably spent on piers, roads, better steamer transport, etc., I cannot help feeling that the Highlands have long asked for bread and have been given a stone. They have got nothing. The schemes that have, been devised for them have very largely meant the creation of bodies of officials. The Board of Agriculture does fine work in many ways, in the improvement of stock and in other matters which were referred to by the right hon. Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson). That aspect of the Board's work is done very well, but it would have been done infinitely better if the Board had seen to the question of transport, piers and roads, and if they had also acted in the settlement of men on the land much as is done in Canada.
In Canada, they take men from all kinds of trades and occupations and settle them on the land, and some official goes from the agricultural college at the vital time of the year and shows the men exactly a hat they are to do. This is done in large areas. In small areas a good deal can be done in the way which was spoken of by the hon. Member for Caithness (Sir A. Sinclair).
A man can make a living by intensive agriculture out of a comparative bit of land. I read the other day of the case of a man rear Melbourne who was making a living o at of a very small bit of land, in close proximity to a town. But although the Highlanders live away from the great towns and are in small numbers to-day, they have lived in the Highlands in great numbers in days gone by. As evidence of the numbers and type of men who lived in the Islands in days gone by, I would quote from a book on the history of Skye, which states that:
In the 40 years preceding the accession of Queen Victoria, the 'Misty Isle' had furnished for the public services 21 Lieut.-Generals and Major-Generals, 45 Lieuu.-Colonels, 600 Majors, Captains and Subalterns, 10,090 private soldiers, 120 pipers; four Governors of British Colonies, one Governor-General of India, and one Adjutant-General of the British Army. Moreover, 1,600 Skyemen fought in the British ranks at the Battle of Waterloo.
That shows that there must have been a very large population which lived and throve there in the old days when so large a force came from one small Island. Splendid men they were, and they could live there again if they had proper facilities. In those days they lived under the clan system. There was no land owning in Scotland in the ordinary sense in those days. There were chiefs, but they were not landowners. They received the dues from their clansmen, not rents. As one chief said during that time, when there was some boasting by an English landowner about his rent roll: "My rent roll is 500 men." That system was broken up by the English Parliament in what they considered to be the interests of public peace. Great suffering went on in the Highlands during that time and onwards, and it is still clinging to the Highlands to this day. I am glad to see that there is a recognition of this fact in the Nairne report. For the first time, we find that one of the Committees on the land system in Scotland is getting past the political economists and realising that the truth in regard to nations and races also applies to individuals. The Old Book says:
What shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I would say, what shall it profit a nation or a race if it gains any amount of wealth in industry if it loses its population or the best element of it? The Committee say, in their Report:
There are, in the Islands and on the West Coast, congested communities on the fringes of sheep farms, living under conditions of extreme penury, but refusing to leave their homes.
Why do they refuse to leave their homes? Because they will not go into great crowded cities to live. It is far better to live even in a condition of great penury, more or less in the open air, with the freedom of the glens or the Islands, than to be jammed in the dense populations of cities such as Dundee and Glasgow. The ordinary Highlander would far rather be living on a very small earning than go into the congested areas, and he is right. He is an individualist, an intense individualist. I am pleased to see that the Committee say:
To apply the ordinary economic test to land settlement under such conditions would
be absurd. It can be shown that a large sheep farm, run by a skilled stockmaster with adequate capital and employing skilled shepherds, Will produce better and more stock than the same farm with the best bits of the land laid off in crofts, and the hill ground run as a club sheep farm. … But the comparison is between two entirely different things. A sheep farm is a commercial undertaking and has to he judged as such; a crofting community is a way of living and cannot be judged in terms of a profit-and-loss account.
It all depends on what you call profit and loss. Will it produce better men or sheep? If you take at the end of the year the balance of profit, if you take that short view, you may call it profit and loss, but if you take the long view as to the necessity of keeping a splendid, virile population on the land, it is a different matter. I am glad to note in the Report that:
The men may go away as seamen sailing from the great ports, or as seasonal workers in different occupations, returning at intervals to their homes.
If you go ino any school in any of these Islands and ask the boys what they the going to do when they grow up, in most cases they will reply that they are going to sea, but they always come back to the crofts. They are a splendid national asset. I have sailed round the world and I have never been on a ship where I have not found some Argyllshiremen or Skvemen who were sailors but who intended some day to come back to their homes. I am very delighted to hear of the comparative cheapness of land settlement, but I think it can be improved very much. The Report tells us that there are congested communities living on the fringe of sheep farms. Why should they live on the fringe of sheep farms? Why not still further pursue the policy, if you can, of settling numbers of men on larger holdings? There must be land amongst these sheep-farms that would give settlement.
Another point that ought to be attended to is the question of the fishing industry. I was speaking to a descendant of a man whose forebears lived in the Island of Ulva, and he told me that 120 years ago there were between 200 and 300 homes of crofter fishermen there. These men were celebrated for their physique and character all over the British Empire. There were none of them under six feet in height; they were
men of great physical powers and well educated men, with their own schoolmaster supported largely by themselves. My informant showed me letters from his forebears, beautifully written in good English. These people lived on the produce of their crofts and on their fishing. Why is not fishing better protected to-day Why do we not take better care that the inshore fishing is not destroyed by trawlers from the fishing ports? I know that there are fishery cruisers; I was surprised to hear that there are seven of them. I have had complaints of how the trawlers destroy the fish of the crofter. The crofter can keep on with a comparatively small holding if he has the opportunity to be a fishermen, but that is denied him because of the depredations of the fishing trawlers.

Mr. WOMERSLEY: Nonsense!

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) is entirely wrong. We have had some most extraordinary cases. We had one case not long ago where a boat was actually photographed and seen by a number of people doing the inshore damage; but, on the other hand, it is stated that when the photograph was supposed to be taken the boat was lying in Grimsby or some other harbour. Why do we not act as they do in the Island of Iceland or the Danes, where they never think of fining a man £100 for poaching; they fine him £1,000, and lay up the boat for a time. If that were done, that would help land settlement and would put many crofts which are now struggling on economic lines.
7.0 p.m.
One of the particular difficulties of land settlement, which was referred to by the right hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson) in a somewhat gloomy tone, is the urbanising of our rural population, and that is largely due to the educational system. I remember a doctor in Kirkwall telling me that in his young days the boys were taken in April from the town of Kirkwall as herd-boys in their tender years and they returned in October- greatly improved in health and physique and much improved in their mental faculties and powers of observation. They were able to beat the boys of the slightly better-off classes who were not sent to be herdboys. They became natural horn agriculturists. They had been trained to the industry almost
from their infancy. They took naturally to it and became quite good agriculturists before they were long out of their teens. Now, he says, that sort of thing has been stopped. They stay there until they are 14 years old and then they are afraid of a cow and want an indoor job and will not take up agriculture. Agriculture is an industry that young people would naturally take to, but if you keep them away from it until they reach a certain age you will not get them interested in it. Our country schools ought to give far more scope for introducing the children to a study of agriculture. I do not mean the little garden I mean something really plots. I genuinely agricultural, some thing that will teach them the rearing of animals and cultivation of crops, something that will give them the real love of country life, and of agriculture. At the present moment all over Anglo-Saxon countries you hay e got this more or less scholastic education for the rising generation, and it is the schoolmaster more than anybody else that has driven our population off the land. The hon. Member for West Fife spoke of certain Islands. I do not know if he knows the Island of Canna he spoke of. It is a small island, the proprietor farms it, and employs nearly all the people that are on it and raises cattle. That is one of the needs of the Highlands. If there were more cattle there, they would tramp down more of the bracken, which is one of the curses of the Highlands. The real difficulty of the Highlands is the depopulation caused at the beginning of last century in the interests of sheep. The sheep drove the crofters off the land and the deep followed the sheep as they became more profitable.
I would ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to take up the question of repopulation. What was done in the case of Tiree where the people were all given crofts. If he did elsewhere what was done there, there would be a very considerable settlement again of these strongly individualistic highland people.

Mr. MAXTON: That would require legislation.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I am quite satisfied; he could work it under the powers he has. It is not only the Islands. I
could give him cases of more recent depopulation. The island of Coll, a particularly fertile island, has had its population more than halved since 1891. It used to be about 500. Now, more than half of them have departed, and their departure has been partly due to the freight troubles, the freight charges and the difficulty of getting their produce to the market. If the Secretary for Scotland will tackle this problem, as he is tackling it, and get the transport dealt with on a proper basis, get the Minister of Transport to give assistance in the provision of proper piers and proper roads, then I have not the slightest doubt that land settlement will become an easy matter, and we will have something like a return of the old healthy, vigorous population we had in past years.

Mr. MAXTON: I would like very much to follow my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Argyll (Mr. Macquisten) on his general considerations of why the Highlands are being depopulated and those who are left are in starvation. He told us that the Highlander is an individualist of individualists, and so the Highlands are in starvation. I take it that is the logic of the position.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: I never said that they were in starvation. The average Highlander in any Island is in a much better condition of social prosperity than the majority of the hon. Member's constituents.

Mr. MAXTON: I am not going to attempt to say in this House that the condition of my constituents is defensible under private capitalism in the towns, but I gather, from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech and from other speeches, that the individual in the Highlands under individual landlordism is as badly off as my people in the towns. These individualists of individualists come here to appeal to the State to build piers and roads, and send thorn fishery cruisers.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: You get free ferries in Glasgow.

Mr. MAXTON: Yes, I know we do, and we believe in free ferries, but you believe in individualism, and therefore you get MacBrayne. The points I wish to raise are points not previously dealt with
in the Debate, points in which I and many other people interested in Scottish agriculture are interested. First, I want to know what is the exact position with regard to the establishment of the dairy research station at the Auchincruive Estate. I gather from the Report that the matter is not satisfactorily settled, that the Research Institute is not yet in operation, although it must be six or seven years since the offer of the estate was made for this purpose. Is the Secretary of State still dilly-dallying with the offer so generously made by Mr. Hannah, and with the authorities of the Glasgow Institute and of the West of Scotland Agricultural College? Does he still persist in his policy of killing the Glasgow Veterinary College? I notice there is absolutely no reference to it in his Report. There is a very minor reference to the Royal (Dick) Veterinary College in Edinburgh. Do I take it, that, since he withdrew the grant from that college, he ceases to have any interest in it, and that his desire is that it should be wiped out at the earliest possible moment?
The third point I wish to ask is this. I am very interested to hear that the Empire Marketing Board has given considerable grants for agricultural research of one kind or another in Scotland. I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman if all this research work for the Empire Marketing Board is done at the Rowatt Research Institute, or whether any of it is being done in the Glasgow College or in the Edinburgh College? I have heard the complaint made that the young men are not available for research work in agriculture. Any information that I have on this subject is that young men and women, who have received special training in agricultural science, are walking about unemployed. Men and women with agricultural degrees and agricultural diplomas are unable to find employment. This is a rather serious matter, because a very large proportion of those specially trained young men have been trained by special grants from the Ministry of Agriculture. They are put through their training in their agricultural colleges and the universities, they graduate, and then they walk the streets as unemployed, while we are then told that men and women are not available for agricultural research work. It may be true that not
every man who takes a general degree in agriculture is capable of the most abstruse research, but you are not giving them opportunities of learning the work of research if you concentrate all the agricultural research work in the Rowatt Institution at Aberdeen, rind deprive Glasgow and Edinburgh of the opportunities of ever doing it.
While I am on this point of the unemployment among young men and women, who have been specially trained for agriculture, I would indicate to this Committee that there are a number of people who think that the easy solution, the certain solution of unemployment, is to train town dwellers for agricultural work, but, if it be the case, as I am suggesting that a large proportion of the people, who have had the best possible education that this country can give at present for agricultural work, are not being found employment of any description, let alone employment that is in keeping with the special training they have received, then it seems to me not to hold out much hope of making a very speedy transfer of the unemployed industrial worker to the unemployed agricultural acres of this country. Those are the three points I wish to make.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Perhaps it will be convenient if I reply to the Debate at this stage. I am very glad indeed that I have the opportunity of listening to the views of hon. Members from Scotland, not only upon the ordinary Estimates of the Board of Agriculture, and the work which they have been doing, but also the views which have been expressed upon the committee which I set up some time ago under the chairmanship of Sir Gordon Nairne. I should like to say that we are much indebted to the members of that committee for the painstaking way in which they carried out their work. I am sure I am expressing the views, not only of myself and of my own Department but of all Scottish Members, when I say that we much appreciate the clarity with which they have set out the problem they were asked to consider. It is, of course, a matter for regret that Mr. Campbell, owing to the state of his health, was not able to continue to sit upon that committee, but the House has already had its attention drawn to the fact that I have
recently received from him a very interesting and useful report upon the whole problem of agricultural education in Scotland, which, I hope, we may be able to use as a fresh starting point for agricultural improvements. The Committee will, I am sure, realise that it would be premature and, indeed, Impossible for me, to express any definite opinion upon the report submitted t o me by the Nairne Committee. I have, of course, read that report with great interest. It will be a little time before I in consultation with my Department, can come to a definite conclusion and, in the ordinary course, submit to the Government any proposals or changes.
Reference was made in the Debate to-day to a matter of no small importance, the recommendation made by the committee as to the possible policy for dealing with the small holdings problem in the non crofting counties. I am not going to express any opinion as to which solution should be taken on that matter. I think it is clear that the interpretation which the right hon. Gentleman put upon the tenure, that it was to be assimilated to the agricultural tenure in the Lowlands, with a safeguard in matters of excessive rent and of way-goings, was the essence of the proposal.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Let me make it quite clear. There will be no guarantee at all of security of tenure.

Sir J. GILMOUR: There would be the guarantee of security of tenure which applies to the ordinary agricultural tenant, and it assimilates it to the same conditions as those of agricultural holdings in England and Wales. I am not expressing any opinion as to what, the Government may do, but it will require mature consideration before coming to any conclusion. Let me now turn to some of the questions which have been raised in this Debate. Comment has been made upon the salaries paid in the Board of Agriculture. I would point out that this year, in conjunction with other Departments, we have been trying to make economies in the general interests of the State. That necessitates, of course, a reduction of salaries. There has been a decrease in salaries, and, if we compare the years 1927 and 1928, there has been an actual decrease in the number of staff—I admit it is only small in number, six—and a decrease of £747
in salaries. If we add to that, as I think we are justified in doing, the amount saved under different heads in salaries, it amounts to over £1,000.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Out of 1120,000.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Hon. Members must not forget that when they urge me to carry out great extensions of land settlement it means that the more land settlement progresses the more need there is for supervision and for planning. If we develop not only this particular side of land settlement but are to make progress on the scientific side as well—I am glad hon. Members are taking an interest in this matter, and I was very pleased to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton)—it becomes necessary to have a staff efficient for the duties which they have to perform. I want to refer to another economy which has been driven home to us because of the circumstances of the times. I refer to what has been said about the expenditure upon land settlement itself. To listen to some of the speeches in the Debate one would suppose that we were deliberately abandoning land settlement. That is not the case. It is true that there is a reduction of £100,000 under this head in the Estimates for this year, but the Committee must not assume that because this is the case there is going to be any appreciable departure in the work of settlement which has taken place during the last few years. We agreed to the reduction on this particular Vote this year on the assumption that the maximum amount of £175,000 would he available for the two following years, in which case the Board of Agriculture would be in a position to meet the existing commitments at the rate at which they have been maturing in recent years and in addition to make new commitments averaging £130,000 per annum for the next three years, at the same time having a reasonable reserve and margin for dealing with an acceleration of work and meeting commitments.
In the past three years, the Board have expended on land settlement, in 1924–25, £189,000; 1925–26, £131,000, and in 1926–27 £141,000. When I am asked whether I propose to proceed with a completely new development of land settlement at an
accelerated pace, of course, I cannot do so under the provision which is asked from the House at this period. All I can say about the future is that the Government must take into consideration the Report which we have recently received and the general financial circumstances of the country at the present time. In addition, the Committee must not forget the provisions which the Government are making in other respects in the Budget of this year which will have, no doubt, a far-reaching reaction upon the condition of those who work on agricultural land throughout the country. It has been suggested that there is a lack of co-operation between the Board of Agriculture and the Forestry Commission. I can assure the Committee that that is not the case. Like every other arrangement between two parties it may be that there is room for improvement, and I am very willing to explore any avenue which will bring them into closer contact, but I assure hon. Members that at the present moment there is the closest co-operation between these two bodies.
I turn now to a matter which has been referred to by mere than one hon. Member this evening, and that is the provision of money for agricultural drainage. I am well aware that this is one of the prime recommendations of the Commission on agriculture, and I agree that it is one of the most urgent problems with which we have to deal. I wish the circumstances were such that more money could be spent upon it, because there is no other service which is of more importance in dealing with the problem of the land. I can assure the Committee that Scotland has received her full share of the money that is being set aside for land drainage, and we have done our best to administer it on practical lines.

Mr. HARDIE: Do you not think you might drain the land of the water in the same way as you have drained it of its population?

Sir J. GILMOUR: We have endeavoured to administer the money on practical lines. One hon. Member has suggested that we should only use the unemployed on these works. It is, of course, a very difficult thing to administer a fund of this kind without causing some friction between various applicants who apply for grants. The right hon. baronet may rest assured that we are very con-
scious of the necessity of trying to keep a balance not only between the various parts of the country but between the various classes of holders. It is clearly one of the conditions that, when drainage operations are carried out, the schemes must be submitted for approval. That, of course, takes time. They have to be examined to make sure that they will be effective: that the money will not be wasted. That is one of the conditions of a Government grant, and, in addition, it is impossible to give direct grants to small crofters except for the material, because that is their only expenditure. If, on the other hand, the crofter employs someone to do the work and can show that he is doing so on the same conditions as other people, that claim will be considered. I agree with the Committee that as and when we can get more help in this matter of drainage it should receive support from the Department and myself.
I turn to the problem of agricultural organisation. Nothing will do more to help agriculture than agricultural organisation, but the essence of it is to get the agricultural community really to take the matter up for themselves. I am glad to think that the past year has shown a great advance in this direction. We have had two striking examples of the value and possibilities of agricultural organisation, first, under the wool scheme and, secondly, under the milk pool. I hear with great regret that there are those in this wool combine, who, because they happened to be offered temporarily some particular rise, are inclined to be led away. If that is the way in which those who interest themselves in these things are going to treat agricultural organisation, let me say quite plainly, it is bound to fail. I say, and I hope this will reach a wider circle than I am speaking to at the moment. that they will realise that it is only by real co-operation and by sticking together that they can get full advantage of this scheme. I trust that the milk pool, which is operating now in the West of Scotland, may shortly extend its operations into the East of Scotland and that before long we may have a complete network linking up and giving enormous advantages to the milk producers in Scotland.
Just a few words on the more scientific side of agriculture—the question of the
agricultural colleges. I regret that the agricultural colleges should feel that either I or my Department have failed to take a real interest in their representations or in the question of the salaries of the staffs. Let me say at once that the salaries which have been paid in the, past to the workers in our agricultural colleges have unfortunately been low and, obviously, one of the reasons why we have lost some good men in Scotland has been the fact that they have been tempted elsewhere. But it was essential in dealing with this problem that I should come to an understanding with the colleges themselves that they should give a larger measure of support and make a better balance between the State contribution and the local contribution. The colleges made certain representations to me. I have met representatives of the colleges personally on two occasions and have discussed this subject with them. I believe that we have come to a settlement of the salary part of this problem. I gather from what has been said in this Debate that the expression of dissatisfaction with the salaries referred mainly to the county organise' s. When the proposed increase of salaries was intimated to the colleges last Oct 3ber the three colleges jointly asked for reconsideration of the scale with a view to the maximum being increased to £500. This was granted, after representations to the Treasury on behalf of myself and the Board of Agriculture. Now one of the colleges and one only comes along, and that the North of Scotland College, and asks for this maximum to be again increased by another £50.

Mr. MAXTON: Are the scales that the right hon. Gentleman has approved for lecturers in the agricultural colleges lower than the scales that he has approved for teachers in secondary schools throughout the country?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I really cannot say, without laving, all the scales before me.

Mr. MAXTON: I can; they are.

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say is that, as a result of representations which I have been able to make to the Treasury, we have come to a settlement which was accepted by the colleges and which goes back to 1926, and that it is at any rate
a vast improvement on the conditions which existed when we discussed this problem a year ago.

Mr. MAXTON: You told them that they must take that or nothing.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Is it quite fair to put it in that way? After all, I did my best to get improved conditions, and when the conditions which I originally submitted for the consideration of the Treasury were again questioned I returned to the Treasury and succeeded in getting a further concession. There must, of course, be some limit to these negotiations. We have recognised the necessity for improving the conditions. I am at one with the hon. Gentleman, and indeed with all my colleagues, in saying that we must do all that is possible to get the best scientific service that we can in Scotland.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Would it not be possible to consult the people who represent those most directly concerned, that is, the association of the college staffs, which would be able to give the right hon. Gentleman the point of view of the people concerned, who have to receive these salaries?

Sir J. GILMOUR: My Board have been in consultation with all those in the colleges and I have myself met in consultation those who really are the principals, who know all the circumstances and can explain to me all the details. I have done everything that I can to improve the conditions. Let me turn now to the question of the work which the colleges in Scotland are doing. Those who have read Mr. Campbells report must feel that, great as is the progress we have made in Scotland, there is still much left to be done. We have set our minds towards trying to get a, proper co-ordination of work between the three colleges. The assistance which comes not only through my department, but which has been given and may be increasingly given by the Empire Marketing Board, has all been directed towards making this research under the best possible conditions. Roughly speaking, Aberdeen is concerned mainly with animal nutrition, Edinburgh with animal breeding, and Glasgow now and increasingly with milk. If we can get, as I hope we shall
at a later stage, further conferences between the colleges and a close co-ordination of work between them, we are likely to get the best results.
With regard to Auchincruive, the hon. Member for Bridgeton asked whether that matter was now proceeding. That offer was made to the West of Scotland College of Agriculture and was not accepted. I invited the donor, Mr. Hannah, to place the estate at my disposal, and I am glad to say that I have been able to accept it, and to come to an arrangement with the West of Scotland College by which Auchincruive will be developed not only for ordinary agricultural teaching and administration, but will before long, we hope, be the headquarters of what is now the dairy school at Kilmarnock, and will have, in addition, the scientific research station placed there. We are taking a certain amount of money in these Estimates to begin the development of that estate, and I would only say now that the Government are greatly indebted to Mr. Hannah for the generosity of his gift and for the great patience that he has shown over a long period of very difficult negotiation which is now happily brought to an end.
I am glad to think that there is a general awakening throughout the agricultural community in Scotland in favour of agricultural research. Our problem is not only to find the best scientific minds to investigate these problems, but to translate into language which can be understood of the agriculturist the results which are achieved in the laboratory. I hope that by some system of winter classes or short courses, or by improving the conditions of those who visit the various institutions, we may increasingly be able to strengthen them. There is growing up a younger generation of farmers who are taking a keen interest in this problem, and the more we can stimulate that interest the more likely is agriculture to flourish. I hope the Committee will realise that there is no lack of good-will on the part of the Board of Agriculture in developing these services.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: As to the work of the colleges of agriculture, I pointed out that the work of the North of Scotland College is going to suffer this year a severe restriction in connection with the
travelling expenses and allowances of the College's organisers, that in the crofting counties, which need the organisers most, the allowances have been cut down most, and that if the demands of the Treasury have to be met, the Chairman and Secretary of the College tell me, it will mean that the work in those districts will have to be abandoned altogether. They have implored the Secretary of State to give them an opportunity of discussing the situation with him. Will he not meet them and discuss the matter with them so as to avert what would be a catastrophe?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I was in Aberdeen some time ago and then discussed the problem. It was stated to me that if certain reductions that the Treasury expected were made, they would have to curtail their work. But if certain counties in Scotland will make no contribution, and if the services of the College are regarded as of small importance by the counties, obviously then the service must be curtailed. I am hopeful, however, that these counties will realise that these services are of value to them, and that they will make a contribution. If they do so, I do not doubt that a solution of the problem will be reached. I hope that a solution will he reached. Anything that I can do to facilitate that end I shall do.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: Will you allow the Governors an opportunity of discussing this question with you in an interview?

Sir J. GILMOUR: I have already seen the Governors upon two occasions, and have discussed the matter. I think the case must be left at present with the Governors, to bring pressure on the counties that are not giving them the necessary support. If and when they find that that is impossible, I shall be quite willing to meet the Governors. I do not know that at the moment I can usefully add anything else.

Mr. MAXTON: What about the veterinary colleges?

Sir J. GILMOUR: All I can say upon that question is that, following upon the recommendation of a Committee, the grant to the Veterinary College of Glasgow has been withdrawn. Of course I realise the feeling of some of those who are connected with the service, but I think that the service of the veterinary
profession would be best served, in a small country like Scotland, if this side of it were concentrated in one place. If all those students who are now going to Glasgow College went to Edinburgh College, the arrangement would be infinitely more efficient in every way for the general service of the veterinary profession in Scotland. I regret that in the circumstances I cannot hold out the least hope that there will be any revision of the decision which was come to after very careful investigation.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

CLASS V.

SCOTTISH BOARD OF HEALTH.

Motion made, and Question proposed;
That a sum not exceeding £2,037,515, be granted to His Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1929, for the salaries and Expenses of the Scottish Board of Health, including Grants and other expenses in connection with Housing, Grants to Local Authorities, etc., in connection with Public Health Services, Grant, in-Aid of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service, Grants-in-Aid in respect of Benefits and Expenses of Administration under the National Health Insurance Acts, certain Expenses in connection with the Widows' Orphans', and Old Age contributory Pensions Act, 1925, and certain special services—[Note.—£830,000 has been voted or, account.]

Mr. ERNEST BROWN: I am sure that the time; permitted for the discussion of this Vote will not permit us to ask the innumerable questions that we would like to ask about the Report of the Board of Health for 1927. This being the swan song, I suppose, of the Board of Health, the Committee will want to have this Vote before it more than once, because there are so many questions that Members want, to discuss. There is the extraordinarily valuable chapter on maternity and child welfare, and there are the references to infectious diseases, the problem of the Highland Medical Fund, and I am sure we ought to have a whole day to discuss the report of the Board on administration of the Poor Law, especially the passage dealing with the able, bodied unemployed poor. This evening I content myself by asking one question about the administration of the National Health Insurance Fund, and I also wish to raise points relating to the administration of pensions and housing, with
special reference to slum clearances. The Committee will have noticed with great regret that the hopes expressed by the Board in last year's Report, with reference to the total amount of sick benefit paid, have not been realised, but that in 1927 there has been an even larger demand for sick benefit than there was in 1926. The Board states:
Although the year 1926, the year of disturbance in the coal industry, saw a great increase in the amount of sickness and disablement benefit granted under the system of National Health Insurance, it was anticipated that the increase was only temporary and that 1927 would show a return to normal expenditure. This has not proved to be the case. The expenditure on these benefits was greater in 1927 than in 1926. This increase was surprising and disappointing. It cannot be said that the causes of the progressive increase are fully understood, but the experience of individual societies has been carefully followed, and steps have been taken to improve the scrutiny of claims for benefit and to bring the disturbing position before certifying insurance practitioners and others concerned with health insurance administration. We wish to place on record our considered view that we attach the greatest importance to correct certification of incapacity for work under the conditions of the National Health Insurance Acts, as our deliberate conviction is that a reliable and correct system of true certification is bound up with and necessary for the financial stability of any scheme of sickness insurance.
I wish to ask, in relation to the experiences of individual societies to which the Report refers, if any wide difference is shown in the administration of varying types of societies? If we find, on examination, that this large increase is, broadly speaking, spread equally over all types of societies, there is need for a close investigation of the whole problem. If it should be found, however, that one type of society shows a larger measure of increase as compared with others, then the increase may be due to the administration of those particular societies. I desire the Under-Secretary to give the Committee some information on that point. Then as to the administration of the Pensions Act, there are certain matters on which I should like explanations. Every Member from Scotland and, indeed, from England and Wales also, in the year before last, regarded himself not merely as the representative of his constituents but the representatives of the widows in his constituency. The principal question discussed in connection
with the early administration of the Act was the question of the pre-Act widow. Just as that was so in 1926, so in 1927 Members have taken an interest in the position as if affects the wives of a certain number of insured persons particularly those who attained the age of 70 before the benefit for those between 65 and 70 became operative.
Political life should not be so narrow as to deny credit to opponents when progress is made in social legislation. Even when we think there are defects it is our duty to give credit where credit is due. The Pensions Act has undoubtedly given relief in thousands of homes. It has lightened the lot of many widows and orphans and is easing the lot of many old people. The Report shows that there are contributors, for both health and pensions benefits, in Scotland, numbering 1,781,300 persons and that the total number of contributors for all pension benefits is 1,804,400. Pension payments are being made annually to 150,000 persons, that is to say to three-hundredths of the population or to one-twelfth of the total number of insured persons in Scotland. Widows' and orphans' pensions have a backing not merely in sentiment but in the appreciation of the difficulties which fall upon a family deprived of the breadwinner and I wish to put certain questions about the administration of the Act, not merely in order to he critical, but in order to get at the mind of the Board as to future administration and any possible alterations.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present; Committee counted; and 40 Members being present—

Mr. BROWN: With regard to contributory old age pensions for persons between 65 and 70, the actuarial estimate was that in Scotland about 51,000 persons would be receiving such pensions on 2nd January, 1928. There was to be a certain limitation of the right to cash benefits under the National Health Insurance Act, and to unemployment benefit under the Unemployment Insurance Act, to persons who had not attained the age of 65, but we find that in May 41,688 claims had been issued—that is as regards forms—and in December 60,948 claims had been received. The claims awarded were 45,097 and 5,826 were disallowed, while 1,707 were otherwise disposed of
and there are still outstanding 8,318. Of the claims disallowed 3,973 were due to one particular misapprehension as to the possibility of benefit and I notice also that there were 664 premature claims. In a number of eases the age wan not determined. In cases of persons of Irish descent particularly it was found difficult to determine ages. There were 738 claims disallowed because of deficiency in the insurance record and on these matters I wish to put the following questions.
First, what happens when it has been found impossible to establish the age of a claimant? Those who have numbers of insured persons in their constituencies know how difficult it has been to determine ages in many cases, particularly in cases of persons born in Ire land or of Irish descent. Secondly, is there any evidence of dismissal from employment when the age of 65 has been reached? The Committee will remember that fears were expressed on this point. Thirdly, has the Board of Health discovered any anomalies which can be rectified without altering the structure of the Act, in order to lessen the number of disallowances recorded in these figures? I am sure the Committee would welcome any such alteration. Fourthly, is any estimate being made as to the cost to the scheme of including wives whose husbands were 70 before the scheme operated? According to the Report that. would affect 4,000 persons, in round figures. There was and still is a great deal of feeling about the pre-Act widow, and I assure the Minister that whatever may be in the minds of the logicians, there is a great deal of feeling in the constituencies about these border-line cases. If anything can be done to meet them, we would like to have an estimate of the cost. I would also like to know what is the position of the totally disabled ex-service man with regard to the receipt of sickness disablement benefit under the scheme. Is such a man entitled to the full 16s. sickness pay and his full 7s. 6d. or not? Statements have been made that he is not so entitled, owing to a flaw in the drafting. Perhaps the hon. and gallant Gentleman will tell us what are the facts. In the analysis of the scheme we find many cases of rejection because of inadequacy of
period or shortage of contributions. People write in this way:
I am deprived of my pension because my husband died before the Act was passed. He had been insured from the time it started until the day he died. I am 68 and quite unable to work. My son, who has supported me since my husband's death, is now in a mental hospital, suffering from complete mental breakdown from the War, and I have a no private means.
A letter of that kind is written under a misapprehension as to the basis of the scheme, but I think, in discussing the administration of the scheme, a point of that kind ought to be brought out because great many people have been sending in claims under the impression that the period of insurance beginning with 1912 would count in all cases towards the granting of pensions under the scheme. I would also raise the question of the widow whose husband was 70 before 2nd January, 1928. We under-stand that there are 45,000 of these persons in Scotland. A great many people of this type, however, have not made claims because their friends hay e had claims rejected, and we must not take this figure: as representing the total number of persons of that type. The Board itself has felt the pressure of these rejections, rid on page 235 and the following pages pains are taken to argue the case. In connection with that argument I would pat a further question. The Report states:
Some criticism was occasioned by the exclusion of certain types of uninsured women, particularly of wives under 70, of men who attained 70 before the provisions relating to pensions between the ages of 65 and 70 came into operation. The representations received were based generally on the argument that the woman should not be deprived of pension merely because her husband was too old and on the assumption that had the husband been under 70 it would have automatically followed that the wife would hay?, become entitled in right of his insurance to a pension between the ages of 65 and 70.
8.0 p.m.
I have already asked if any calculations have been made as to the cost of bringing such persons into the scheme. Although over 4,000, they must be a limited number because of the type, and I think that under the scheme the Minister ought to take into consideration not merely the logical effect of the structure of the scheme, but the feeling about these
shortcomings which is present in every constituency. It says, on page 236:
It was represented also that a woman should not have to wait for an old age pension until her husband attained the age of 65. This again ignored the actuarial foundations of the scheme. There is involved also the suggestion that it can be determined while the husband is still under 65 whether or not he will be entitled to a pension on attaining the age of 65.
I notice that it states:
Only 738 claims had been disallowed by the end of the year because of some deficiency in the insurance record that debarred the claimant from satisfying the conditions as to insurance which are required by the …
I would like a reply from the Minister about these points, because we have had a ruling to this effect on a definite case as follows:
The applicant claims an old age pension under Section 7 of the Act as being a person who has before the 2nd January, 1928, attained the age of 65, and has not attained the ago of 70. She is a married woman and does not make the claim as being an insured person herself, but as being the wife of an insured person. In order to succeed on this ground, it is necessary to show that her husband is or has been entitled to an old age pension under Section 7 of the Act, that is to say, that he is or has been so entitled to an old age pension between the ages of 65 and 70 under the Act. In fact, her husband was born on the 16th January, 1857, so that he attained the age of 70 before the 2nd January, 1928, and, therefore, he is not and has not been entitled to an old age pension under the provisions of Section 7 of the Act. The applicant's claim in right of her husband's insurance therefore fails.
Although on the basis of the Act the argument appears to be sound, I do not think it was the intention of Parliament to shut out this type of person, and it would be valuable to get the mind of the Board as to whether anything could be done for these persons who have been debarred under this ruling. I do not overlook the fact that the Act provides, for persons who were on the point ofreceiving benefit, and just approaching the ages of 65 and 70, benefits out of all proportion to anything that could be obtained from any comparative premium, but, nevertheless, I assure the Minister that the feeling about this matter exists very widely in various parts of Scotland which I have visited since the operation of this particular Section of the Act.
I wish to elaborate a point about totally disabled ex-service men. A statement has been made that under the Act of 1924, Section 60, Sub-sections (1) and (2), there is a provision which prevents totally disabled ex-service men receiving the whole of the disablement and sickness benefits, namely, 15s. for sickness and 7s. 6d. for disablement, which are ordinarily paid, unless they have been in insurable employment for 26 weeks in the case of sickness benefit, and 104 weeks in the case of disablement benefit. It is obvious that this cannot have been the intention of Parliament in drafting the Act, and I would like to know whether these statements really are facts, or whether there has been a misapprehension on the part of those who have made them.
Now I wish to turn to the question of housing, with special reference to slum clearance. This problem is one of the first political problems of the day. Whether it becomes a party political problem will depend entirely upon what happens inside the next four or five years from the point of view of administering the present Acts and devising new plans to meet the awful question of the condition of the slums, especially in our great cities. The problem before the past generation was the provision of gas and water, but the problem of this and the next generation will be the provision of air and light. One of the biggest troubles we have, as we have hinted at Question time, in regard to England and Wales to-day is that we have not the knowledge of the facts. We are better off in Scotland than they are South of the Border with regard to the facts, because we have had a later comprehensive inquiry in Scotland than has been held in England and Wales. The facts are that some people know many of the facts, all know a few of the facts, but none know all the facts. Whether the estimates that are made as to the number of houses required are those of the experts, or popular estimates, or Departmental estimates, none of them at the moment really face up to the problem.
In my judgment, the housing question depends on the view of the Department and of the country as to four words which are the keywords, namely, "persons," "room," "family," and "dwelling." If we are going to under-
stand the size of the problem, we shall have to envisage the problem in relation to these four words. How many persons do we intend to live in a room, and how many families in a dwelling? If we are to set up a standard for inquiry as to how many houses we want in Scotland, if we are not going to accept the rough estimate of 10,000 given us in the Report, if we are going to say that we mean by a housing standard every family a separate dwelling—I am not saying whether it is a house or an. apartment or fiat—and if, on top of that, we say we require for every adult person a separate room, it is obvious that the estimates given in the Board of Health Report and in the Royal Commission's Report have no relation to the real needs of Scotland.
This is a domestic, political problem of the first class. The slum question especially has been looked at but never really examined over the whole range of the nations. Some of the cities have made careful investigations. Edinburgh at the moment is engaged on a very exhaustive examination, and I am asking these questions to-day because the figures recently given to the City Council in Edinburgh in. the preliminary reports show that there are 5,000 houses in Edinburgh alone which should be marked down as unfit for human habitation, so that the previous estimates in the eight Reports that have gone before the 1927 Report have no relation to the real needs if you set up a decent standard of comfort for your people. There are so many factors underlying this question that I am sure it will require a great and united effort if we are to cleanse our cities of slums.
I desire to point out that this year we welcome the fact that 21,660 houses have been built, as compared with 14,930 in 1926, and we equally welcome the prophecy that next year the Board hope, by administering the present Acts, to go over the 20,000 mark. But I notice the statement that we want 10,000 houses to meet normal needs, and it is because of that statement that I propose to put these questions to the Minister: What is the present estimate of the Board of Health as to the annual housing needs of Scotland, bearing three things in mind, namely, normal growth, replacement, and slum clearance, and on what standard of accommodation is the estimate based?
Secondly, is there any national estimate of the number of insanitary dwellings in Scotland? There are, for certain parts of Scotland, but is there any estimate in, the archives of the Board of Health giving the total number of insanitary dwellings reported upon throughout the whole of Scotland Then I would like to ask, What is the latest estimate of overcrowded dwellings on the old standard of three persons per room, which I, personally, regard as much too low a standard? What proportion of the estimated needs do the present schemes for slum cleirance cover, on the old basis? Lastly, have the Board of Health considered any scheme of co-operation with the building societies in Scotland as to slum replacement?
When I talk of a standard of accommodation, I have in mind these things: When we talk about the home, we think of all kinds of sweet sanctities, of shelter and hospitality, which are the basis of civilisation, and if we are to get a sufficient standard, I think we have to answer these questions. At any rate, I ask myself these questions: How many people are then? Where are they? How many houses are there? How many of them are occupied and how many unoccupied? What do you mean by a house? How many rooms Is it a house, a separate dwelling, or a flat? Do you mean sculleries and bathrooms as rooms, or are there any? How many square feet are these rooms in area and how many cubic feet in contents? How many groups of persons galled families are there? How many groups of rooms? Do they fit the groups o persons? Do they fit the subgroups families in terms of sex—father, mother, sons, and daughters of various ages? Are there separate entrances to these houses, and water supplies, and sanitary arrangements, and food stores? Are these dwellings where the people are? Do they allow a margin for movement? What are the rents? Will the rents fit the wages? These are questions that have to be asked by everyone who wishes, in approaching the problem of slum clearance, to get at the roots of the problem, and I venture to ask myself, not the Minister, these last questions, in order that he may know what is in my mind when I am asking what estimate there is as to the need from the point of view of slums, or as
to the whole problem in Scotland, upon. a standard of accommodation which would adequately cover these points.
Then I noticed that, with regard to the unfit houses, on page 362 of the Report we have reports about houses unfit for habitation in 7,892 cases, out of 43,888 examinations, and that, under Heading B, there were notices issued with regard to unfit houses in 4,174 cases. I would like to know what relation these have to the estimated insanitary dwellings in the whole country. With regard to slum clearance, the facts are very simple. In Scotland, we have not begun to touch the real problem. We have now 38 schemes, touching 11,935 houses to be replaced, 11,558 new houses to be constructed and, 158 to be reconditioned. The point has been made in regard to clearing the slums that the slum dweller will take the slum mind with him where-ever he goes. An examination of 300 cases last year showed that 62 per cent. of those who moved had kept their dwellings in good condition. The experience of last year is again borne out in this year's Report of the Scottish Board of Health, for I notice that the Report says:
The further inspections that have taken place during 1927 show that a genine effort is being made by the majority of the tenants to keep their houses clean and tidy. It is, however, manifest that a certain proportion of the tenants will for a time at least require constant supervision. In view of the conditions under which these tenants have previously lived and of the very unsatisfactory environment that has probably surrounded them all their lives, it cannot in reason be expected that they will at once prove ideal tenants.
That statement will be welcomed as giving the lie to the oft-repeated fable that you cannot take the slum dweller out of the slum without his making a slum where he goes. If we understand the Old Book rightly, Adam did not fall in a slum; he fell in a garden. The removal of people from slum areas to better areas has proved that those who come out of slums may help to keep a house much more like a garden if they get the chance. The five schemes of slum clearance that were certified this year did not go very far. In Aberdeen 317 houses are concerned, and of these 126 are one-roomed dwellings. In Kirkcaldy, there are 162 houses, of which 52 are one-roomed. In the first Glasgow scheme
of 1926, there were 1,051 houses, of which 490 were one-apartment dwellings. In the second scheme of 1927, out of 1,019 houses, 485 were one-apartment dwellings. It is obvious that these schemes must mean, for those who move to better houses, a tremendous improvement over the over-crowded conditions in which they previously lived. I should like to call attention to the inquiry that is being made in regard to Edinburgh. Preliminary observations have been taking place among various committees of the Town Council with regard to a suitable programme, and the Chief Sanitary Inspector has come to the conclusion that approximately 5,000 houses, which might be classified as unfit for human habitation, are at present in the City. The result is that there has been a reference to the Treasurer's Committee for a discussion of the principles of the scheme, and of the means to meet the cost of the scheme. It will be seen that if 5,000 new houses are built at an average cost of £430, it means an expenditure on this one scheme alone of £2,150,000. If they were built at the rate of 500 houses a year for ten years, there would be a vast annual expenditure for Edinburgh alone; or, they might build 250 per year for 20 years. In each case we have to consider if there are any alternative means of meeting the problem.
It is with regard to this point that I ventured to put the question about the building societies to the Minister. We welcome the great advance that has been made in the operations of the building societies, not merely south of the Border, but north of the Border, recently. I would call the attention of the Minister to a passage in a book called "The Silent Revolution," by Mr. Harold Bell-man, the secretary of one of the largest building societies in Great Britain. When discussing the question of slums, he asked this question:
Yet, is it completely beyond the wit of men to devise a practical scheme whereby even the poorer classes can be helped Must they be eternally dependent upon others and be denied the opportunity of helping themselves? If their wage precludes them from purchasing a house, does it completely exclude the possibility that the more respectable workers in this particular stratum who are compelled to live in the congested areas, might purchase—by building society or similar methods—a flat in a model dwelling. Would it be possible for new and model dwellings to be erected at
the public expense and the agreed purchase price of a flat to be provided by a building society, subject to effective guarantees from the local authority in lieu of the ordinary margin of security the weekly rental payments of the dweller being applied to the repayment of the purchase and to the extension of his stake in the security.
That is a passage which might well have the consideration of the Board of Health in Scotland, and of the Minister of Health in England, because it is obvious that it is not always the lack of the means to pay the rent that keeps people in congested areas. I am sure that, if it be found practicable, it would help the local authorities to face the immense capital expenditure envisaged in such a scheme as came recently before the City Council in Edinburgh. It ins true that some of the older people who move from shim dwellings to better conditions do not like it. I met a man the other day, when I went to see some new houses, and he was not very happy. He said he had "no seen a fecht nor a polisman." Two flats away I asked an old lady how she liked it, and she said she did not like it because the new houses were "too cold." The younger people like it very much, and, whereas the older people rather like the companionship which they have in the congested areas, there is no question that, on the whole, the younger people, especially the younger women with children, welcome any chance of getting out of the slum areas. I have ventured to put questions which I think go to the root of the problem, and to make suggestions about building societies, because I regard the slums as a menace to civilisation, as a breeder of disease, as an affront to the conscience, and as a crime, not merely against man, but against his Maker. John Ruskin once said:
God is in the poorest man's cottage; it is advisable that He should be well housed.
In so far as 21,000 houses were built last year, we welcome it as progress, but we want to envisage this problem on a far ampler scale than we have done yet, if we are to meet the real and effective need.

Mr. STEWART: The remarks that have been made by the hon. Menber for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), and the questions which he has put to the Secretary for Scotland, will take the right hon. Gentleman some
time in order to give anything like a complete answer. I should like to refer to a matter which is of considerable importance, and that is the question of the rents that are being charged and what will happen when the Rent Restrictions Act expires? The Rent Restrictions Act should have expired in May this year, but it has been continued for a further period, and is now to expire in 1929. As things are now, if a person leaves a house for any other reason than non-payment of rent or being put out of the house, that house becomes automatically decontrolled, and the landlord is entitled to charge whatever rent a tenant is, willing to pay. In Glasgow, a number of houses have been de-controlled; in 1926–27 the number was something like 1,100. That is only the number recorded, but it is not the total number, because the landlords have different ways of evading the law. The rents of those houses when relet were increased from £90,000 to practically £100,000; less than. 10 per cent increase, but approximating to it.
At the beginning of this year landlords held a meeting in Glasgow and decided that the time had arrived when they ought to get a further 10 per cent. increase in their rent. Under the 1922 Act, I think it was, landlords could raise their rents 133. nearly 50 per cont.—at least, it worked out at something like that in round f4;ures, as I can say from my own experien3e as a tenant whose rent was increased by almost exactly 50 per cent., with, of course, the consequence that the rates rote proportionately. If the Rent Restrictions Act expires and the housing position remains as it is now, rents in Glasgow will increase all round, adding to the 'burdens of people who already are pretty well overburdened in every direction, and then there will follow an outcry twat may have some damage in certain directions with regard to the landlords, being allowed to put on the rents.
It has to be remembered that since the law gave the landlords power to charge increased rents the cost of repairs, material and of everything connected with houses has been falling, and wages have fallen. One of the reasons for allowing the extraordinary increase which they were permitted to make was the high cost of repairs. I hope the Govern-
ment will pay attention to this matter, and that so long as the present shortage of houses continues no opportunity will be given to the landlords to do what they have foreshadowed they will do, and that is put a further increase of rent on a class of people not very well able to bear it. The rents now being charged for the new houses—X26 for the three-apartment houses, plus rates—make it almost impossible for the average artisan, and certainly impossible for the average unskilled labourer, to move into those houses, although they were built with public money for the ostensible purpose of housing the artisan class.
When the great housing schemes were foreshadowed, and we were talking of creating an A 1 nation by removing the conditions which led to a C 3 population, it was intended that these houses should be for the artisan or working class. To-day they are occupied, in the main, by a class which is slightly superior in the matter of wages and conditions of life to the class for whom the houses were intended. That is because the rents fixed by the Government are too high. In equity and fairness, and in view of the changes which have taken place, the rents ought to be lowered. I know the reply will be that as the country is so heavily burdened, such a claim ought not to be made, and that it cannot be acceded to, but if we are to bring about the conditions which have been foreshadowed by all statesmen for many years, we must make it easier for people with large families and small incomes to get into houses where they can live under healthier conditions, with a consequent lowering of the cost of health administration.
There is another matter which requires attention. A good many years ago an Act was passed making it compulsory to notify cases of consumption. I thought that under that Act we had the power to provide separate sleeping accommodation for anyone who had contracted tuberculosis, whether it were phthisis or surgical tuberculosis. Seemingly I made a mistake in assuming that to be so. In Glasgow to-day more than 6,000 people are suffering from tuberculosis. The figures concerning them compiled by the medical officer are worthy of wide publicity. Of those suffering from this
disease who are living in one-apartment houses, only 57 have a room to themselves; 145 have a bed to themselves, though living in the same apartment with others; and 976 are sleeping in bed with other people. Out of a total of 1,173, only 57 have an apartment to themselves. In two-apartment houses the story is the same. There are 441 with a room to themselves, 569 with a bed to themselves, and 2,506 sleeping in beds with others. Out of a total of 3,415 fewer than 1,000 have either a bed or a room to themselves.
Can one wonder that tuberculosis still persists? Despite all the money, the skill and the care which have been lavished on providing people with the necessary bedding, with the necessary shelter and with the necessary freshair and sunshine, there are still 6,000 people in Glasgow living under the conditions I have described, disseminating the disease and nullifying all the efforts made to stamp it out. To-day in Glasgow we are facing the erection of another sanatorium for 400 patients which, before it is finished, will have cost something approaching £500,000. That is to provide decent accommodation for 400 people whom we have allowed to contract this disease. To provide a separate bed for over 5,600 consumptive patients would require an annual addition of 1,360 houses. Surely the Secretary of State for Scotland or the Under-Secretary of State, who are responsible for the health administration, could do something to give the local health authority the power to provide sleeping accommodation for these people, and to provide a separate room for a person suffering from this disease. This ought to be done, not for philanthropic reasons, but in order to protect the rest of the community against infection by a disease which none of us can contemplate with equanimity.
I should like to refer to the question of the houses which are unfit for human habitation. In 1910, when I was a member of the Health Committee of the Corporation of Glasgow, T was informed that there were in Glasgow 13,000 houses unfit for human habitation. At that time, Glasgow was a city of 12,000 acres with a population of 800,000. Some years later the area of the City of Glasgow was increased by 7,000 acres and 200,000 were added to the population.
To-day, in Glasgow, we have a population of about 1,250,000, and still there are 13,000 houses unfit for human habitation. I have it on the authority of the medical officer that at the present time there is no desire to make a fresh investigation into this question, because there is no chance of being able to deal with it. The problem is so insurmountable and stupendous and the cost involved is so enormous that the local authorities and the medical officers representing them are afraid of facing the task of making the necessary investigation as to the number of houses which are unfit for human habitation. If such an investigation were undertaken, I am bound to say that I believe there would not be less than 20,000, and that is after allowing for all the Government have done and all we have done in the matter of slum clearances. No less than 2,100 houses in Glasgow have been put out of existence and 2,100 houses completed between 1926 and 1927. Altogether, in the whole of Scotland, some 6,200 houses have been completed under slum clearance schemes, and 2,200 are it the course of construction to deal with this problem in the whole of Scotland.
Another matter which I wish to mention is the fact that the State has seen fit and considered it wise to make 50 per cent. of the houses which it proposed to construct two-roomed houses and 50 per cent, three-roomed houses. I hope I am mistaken in my figures, but I took them from the Annual Report issued this year. I am dealing with 1920 and 1927, and the Report states in the Appendix dealing with housing in Glasgow that of the 1,000 houses which are being built this year 50 per cent. are to be two-roomed houses and 50 per cent. are to be three-roomed houses.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Major Elliot): Is the hon. Gentleman quoting from the Board of Health Annual Report or the Annual Report issued by the City of Glasgow?

Mr. STEWART: I am quoting from the Annual Report of the Board of Health, and it states:
A total of 1,094 houses were erected under the 1926 scheme. Of the new houses to be provided approximately 50 per cent. will be two-roomed apartments, and the balance will he three-roomed apartments.
The Glasgow improvement scheme for 1927 embraces 21 areas, and, in order to accommodate the displaced tenants, 1,200 new houses are to be built, and 50 per cent. of them are to be two-apartment houses and 50 per cent. three-apartment houses. I cannot say whether that has been ordered to be done by the local authority or by the Board of Health, but my complaint is that such a thing ought not to be permitted at all. As the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) has pointed out, we have the extraordinary standard in Scotland of over three persons per room as the recognised standard for decency and health. At the same time, we are having over four persons per house on the average living in these two-roomed houses, and in many cases in Glasgow there are six, eight., 10 and even 12 persons living in some of the two-roomed houses. I also wish to refer to the question of overcrowding which is taking place in other houses as well as slum dwellings. The medical officer of Glasgow says:
I made a survey of 2,110 houses in Kingston. Binning Park, and Govan, and it was found that 254, or 12 per cent. of those houses, contained two families. A significant aspect of this is that 278 of the two-apartment; houses, or 13 per cent. of the total, were found to contain two families. This form of sub-letting has become fairly common in certain districts, and this problem, instead of getting better, tends to grow worse, because these conditions are being alb wed to grow up,
I would conclude by drawing attention to a fact which has already been dwelt upon by the hon. Member for Leith. In 1917, the Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland reported. They then said that there were immediately required 121,000 houses, and that, in order to raise the standard of housing in Scotland, there were required another £124,000 houses, s) that then, in 1917, there were required 245,000 houses to raise the standard. I want to give my little meed of praise for the effort that has been made in increasing the production of houses up to the figure of 21,000, but !here is little for any one of us in the House of Commons to boast about, or take credit to ourselves for, in what has been done towards building those 245,000 houses that were required in 1917. In 1919, committees were set up in every part of Scotland by order of the Government of that time, an investigation was made, and it was reported that, over
120,000 houses were immediately required. The Government said, bearing out the figures of the local authorities, that 10,000 houses were needed annually to meet the immediate requirements, and that to meet the deficiency another 10,000 must be added. Between 1919 and the 31st December, 1927, in round figures, 70,000 houses were built and 17,000 were in course of construction, so that, while we should have been building at the rate of 10,000 per annum to meet the immediate requirements, we have only built 70,000 in the course of eight years, or much fewer than the 10,000 that were required to meet the immediate need, leaving nothing for the leeway. All this time the problem of the slums was growing, and houses in Glasgow—I cannot speak for Edinburgh or other parts—were in such a condition of disrepair, worn out with old age and neglect, that we have had in the city several instances of properties falling about the tenants while the tenants were in occupation.
This housing problem is an old story. It is a story that must be told, and if the Government of the day, whatever Government it may be, does not pay attention to it, the problem must of necessity develop to such an extent that it will cause distress, and, out of distress, worse happenings. If the Government desire to make our people feel that they have a stake in the country, that it is a country for them that is worth living in, it behoves the Government, who represent the power of the great majority, who have great power in every direction, to take steps to improve these conditions and do away with the menace to which bad housing gives rise. With regard to the question of rent, the Government put down, and they take credit to themselves this year, again, I think, with some degree of righteousness—I mean that. of course, in a complimentary sense—they put the cost of a four-roomed house at £455. That house, in 1910–11, could have been built for £200, and it would have been a better house than that which is now being built at £455. But we could borrow money in those days at 3 per cent., so that all the interest that would have had to be borne on that £200 house would have been £6 per annum. Then our sinking fund would only have been twice £1 13s. 4d., or £3 7s., making a total of something like £9 or £10. If
that house had been built in 1911, it could have been let at a rent of £14, and that would have left the Corporation with £1 of profit per house.
What is the position to-day? Your £455 house will cost you £22 for interest and £7 10s. for sinking fund, making a total rent of something like £30. Then there is the fact that the tenant's rates and the landlord's rates so far as Glasgow is concerned, have gone up to something like 14s. in the £. All this, as I have already said, makes it impossible for the average artisan, and absolutely impossible for the labouring class, ever to hope to occupy these houses, or to realise that dream of the cottage, of 12 houses to the acre—not eight to the acre as at Port Sunlight, or 10 to the acre as at Bournville, but 12 to the acre, as in any of the garden suburbs or garden cities which have been and are being created, and which are necessary just to give decency, to give that freshair and sunshine which nearly everyone of the Members of this House enjoys to the maximum degree, while, on the other hand, the people of that other nation, about whom Disraeli wrote, are living under conditions that bring trouble and strife. The rats can come out of their homes, they can gnaw the pillars of State, and, if the House of Commons is wise, it will decree that the people who produce all the good things of life, and work and strive under conditions that none of us would care to suffer if we could avoid it, shall have some share, lest worse befall.

Mr. MACPHERSON: I propose only to detain the Committee for a few minutes on this very important subject, and I am not going to follow the very admirable speech which has just been delivered by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart). I think that no one could fail to be touched by the very moving appeal that he has made for better conditions in the great city to which he belongs and of which he is a representative. Let me leave that great city, and go to the part of the country which I have the honour to represent. I am only going to ask a question or two with regard to the Highlands and Islands Medical Services. I have read, in common with my colleagues, the very admirable Report of the Scottish Board of Health. Few Reports
are so admirable, so full and so convincing, and it is always a pleasure to read the account that the Board of Health gives of its admirable work during the year. One of the very best instruments that has ever been introduced into the medical service of any country has been the Highlands and Islands Medical Service. I do not think that anyone who knows the Highlands can fail to appreciate the wonderful work that has been done, but, when I look at the Estimates which are before us tonight I find that the amount which is annually allocated for this particular service is only £42,000. I was one of those who advocated a special service of this kind for the Highlands, and I must say for all my colleagues who represented Scotland at that time, including the Secretary of State himself, that we were agreed that something of this nature should be provided for the remote parts of the Highlands and Islands.
The very special work that the service performs cannot be done on £42,000 a year. I believe a sum of round about £60,000 a year is what is actually spent in the service. What do the Government propose to do to keep this fund solvent That it must be kept solvent is obvious, because I am quite certain whatever Government is in power will continue this work and will continue to add to its usefulness, and there is not any doubt at all that a sum of about £20,000 or £30,000 is urgently needed in view of the special and clamant needs of the Highlands and Islands. I should like the Under-Secretary to tell us what the proposal of the Government is with regard to this matter. I noticed with great pleasure that he went to the Highlands quite recently and, as usual, delivered one or two very admirable speeches. He went to the opening ceremony of the Northern Infirmary at Inverness, and I looked to see whether I could find any promise as to what the Government propose to do with regard to that almost unique institution. As he knows very well—and if he did not know before he went there, he would have appreciated the fact by being there—that institution is In a unique position. I am convinced that no better proof of its value could have been given to the world
that that which was given by the admirable response to an appeal for contribution s from local authorities and from rich and poor in the Islands and Highlands. I am a strong believer in the theory that, when the public as a whole have done their level best out, of their means to support an institution of this kind, the remainder of the support required should be provided by the State.
9.0 p.m.
Is it the intention of the Government to give an additional grant to the Northern Infirmary, which provides the one great institution for almost all types of cases in that great and broad and scattered district? It is in the key position of the North. There is no other institution like it. Other institutions are of a smaller character. They do not pretend to cater for the needs of the entire locality. There are one or two hospitals in my own constituency, admirable institutions, but they cater for a more local sphere. This institution has set itself up to cater for a wide and scattered district. It is impossible for people who are taken suddenly ill and have, very likely on the spur of the moment. to be diagnosed, and probably to be operated upon for a major operation, to endure the long travel to the better known ii firmaries in Edinburgh and Glasgow, and it has become quite necessary in the interests of humanity, in the interests of the Highlands as a whole, that this institution, which has been publicly supported to a wonderful extent by the generosity of rich and poor alike, should at this moment become what it is destined to be, a really first-class institution. Thee is no doubt that an institution of that., kind would require a complete staff of specialists. The doctors and surgeons at Inverness are really at the top of their profession. You want all the recent appliances of science, of medicine, and of surgery. You want the infirmary to be thoroughly equipped and maintained, and you cannot do that unless you have a permanent grant, such as I am asking for, from the Board of Health or from tare Government or from the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Fund. I appeal to the Government—and I am appealing for the whole of the people of the North of Scotland—that a substantial grant should be given to this
institution, which is the key institution of its kind in the North of Scotland, catering for a very wide, large and scattered district, in order to maintain it and to equip it and make it what it was meant to be, a really genuine boon to a very large and deserving community.

Dr. DRUMMOND SHIELS: It is a matter of satisfaction to all of us that on this occasion we have the report of the Board of Health before us. I quite agree with what has been said about the very excellent nature of that report. It is always a mine of information, and I think at this time it would be fitting to pay tribute to the valuable work that has been done in connection with it by Sir Leslie Mackenzie, who has now retired and who has been responsible for some very important sections of that report for a good many years. There is one interesting section at the beginning dealing with a subject which, though probably not so important as some that have been raised, is yet one of considerable interest. That is river pollution. I am glad to say that matter is being taken up seriously by the Board of Health. There is no doubt that, both on aesthetic grounds and on grounds of health, it is one of considerable importance. The case I know best is that of the river Esk, in Midlothian, and the condition of the river at the mouth is such as to have caused the Town Council of Mussel-burgh to protest very strongly to the county authorities in whose area the pollution takes place. The Report speaks about the difficulty of prosecution, but it is obvious that in many county areas the composition of the county council is such that it makes for reluctance to prosecute. While it is true that an aggrieved authority can prosecute, even where the pollution is outside its own area, the cost of such a prosecution is a very serious item. I hope that the new advisory Committee which has been set up will achieve the results which are hoped for. At any rate, it is a move in the right direction.
In connection with the distribution of this report of the Board of Health, there is one point that I would like to make which I have made before in these discussions. That arrangements should be made for this report to reach members of local authorities in Scotland.
The price of 6s. 6d. is substantial, and my experience of members of local authorities in Scotland is that very few of them are familiar with this report which gives information which would be most valuable to all of them. I think I suggested before that the Board might circularise local authorities and suggest that they should buy supplies for their members. I am sure it would be to the advantage of the local authorities and to the advantage of health administration in Scotland. I do not know whether this has ever been done, but I should like to pass on the suggestion again.
In regard to the chapter on tuberculosis, I think it is a matter for regret that the progressive fall in the death-rate was not maintained during the last year, but probably the reason given—the very severe climatic conditions in Scotland last year—may be part of the explanation. I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), that undoubtedly we are still retaining in some of our houses in Scotland many cases in an infectious stage of the disease, and, so far as we do that, we are really wasting public money in our other efforts to get rid of this disease. I am glad to notice that there is a slight fall in the death-rate from non-pulmonary tuberculosis. I would like to ask in that connection if the Board of Health are quite satisfied that all is being done that can be done with regard to the milk supply. We know that the milk supply in Scotland for a good many years was responsible for a considerable number of cases of non-pulmonary tuberculosis. We have had in recent years the licensing system, having tuberculin tested and graded milk and so on, and there is no doubt that this has provided milk which is a great improvement on any of the milk which was supplied before. But it must be remembered that licensed milk is dearer in price, and what I am anxious to know is whether the average of the non-graded milk is not perhaps lower than what was the average before the graded system was instituted. We know that the ordinary milk, being cheaper, is naturally bought by the humbler people and is used for children who have poor qualities of resistance. I would urge that continued attention so as to secure a pure milk supply is of great importance. Here,
again, the housing question comes in because it is not only human beings who are badly housed; cattle are also badly housed. There is no doubt that some of the conditions in this respect in some of the large cities and in proximity to them in Scotland are very far from being satisfactory.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) has referred to the Highlands and Islands Medical Services, and I agree with him that they have done a very great work. One need only go to Shetland, for instance, and see the difference in the happiness of the people there in knowing that they can have first-class surgical services at their immediate disposal to realise how important this work has been. It is the same with regard to the other medical and nursing services throughout the Highlands. I was very gild that the Report called attention to the very serious condition in regard to tuberculosis in the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. If you take the 15 to 34 age group and look at it in relation to Scotland generally and the Highlands and Islands in particular, you find that the general average rate for Scotland is 12.2, for the County of Inverness it is 20.5, for Ross and Cromarty, excluding Lewis, it is 26.9, for 'Shetland 28.1, for Sutherland 31 and for Lewis 37.1. These are extraordinary figures.
The report goes on to say that the reason for this state of things is a matter for surmise and that research is being conducted. Those who know the Highlands and Islands, do not require to look very far for at least the major causes of this condition. I think that the first of these is housing. There is no doubt that very many of the Highlands and Islands people are shockingly housed. The houses are old, damp, and often badly overcrowded, and I think that there is no doubt that the housing of the people in the Highlands and Islands is one of the main causes of this extraordinarily high incidence of pulmonary tuberculosis. Again, it is quite possible that the feeding of some of these people is not satisfactory. They do not get adequate food and they are not in a position to resist disease. These figures bear out the need for the investigation which was dealt with in this House a short time ago, and it is to be hoped that general improvement in the pros-
perity of the Highlands and Islands will result in the reduction of these very alarming and very unsatisfactory figures. It is at east satisfactory that the Board of Health has recognised these things and has galled attention to them.
I should like to have said something about Rairmyers Colony and of that method of dealing with certain types of tuberculosis. There is no doubt that such a labour colony is on right lines, but I will not go into details about it now in view of the fact that there are some other Members who want to speak. I think that the Middle Ward District of Lanarkshire and the Board of Health are to be congratulated on co-operating in this effort to deal with tuberculosis on up-to-date lines. I should like to ask the Under-Secretary of State, who we know is an authority on the subject, how the light treatment for surgical tuberculosis is proceeding. Does he consider that the facilities for this treatment, which I think it is now admitted is very successful in these cases, are satisfactory. I see that in the report reference is made to a number of dispensaries being fitted up with light equipment. I should like to know what, in his opinion, is the position generally in Scotland.
The references to venereal diseases in the Repert are also very interesting, especially in view of the recent discussion in this House. They deal with the general propaganda methods which are undertaken, with the encouragement of the Board of Health, and also with the possibility of preventive methods. They say, in regard to these, that certain careful observers believe that these preventive methods may be contributory to the spread of the disease. I think that I have heard an echo of that in other quarters. It is not the opinion of the Army and Navy. The Army and the Navy have reduced their figures in connection with these diseases by the methods which are so sceptically referred to in the Report. The Trevethin Committee also favoured them. I was interested to find that the Board came to the conclusion that secrecy which was so much stressed in the Debate in this House a few weeks ago, did not seem to be of great importance, at least as regards the great cities. One can see quite well that, while the language used is guarded, the Board of Health, as they have shown on several occasions before,
are not satisfied that the present arrangements and system are satisfactory or capable of dealing adequately with these serious diseases. This certainly justifies the attitude of the Edinburgh Corporation and other Scottish local authorities in the matter. It is an appalling fact that last year in Scotland the number of defaulters was 51 per cent. In view of the very large amount of public money which is spent in dealing with this subject it is obvious that a great deal of that money is wasted and, in the name of economy, if humanity is not enough, something else should be tried.
In regard to national health insurance, I do not intend to say very much, although I would have liked to have said a great deal. There is a return in the Report to the attack last year on the medical profession in regard to classification of people as unfit for employment. I hoped that we had heard the last of that because, in my opinion, this attack, while it may have been justified in some cases, has been altogether overdone. I had intended to quote something in the same connection in regard to prescribing, where a great deal is made of the fact that insurance doctors prescribe expensive drugs, and give sweetening and flavouring materials to medicines to make them less unpalatable, a mitigation of suffering which, apparently, is not considered desirable in the case of the insured patient. Altogether, an attitude is taken up in regard to the medical profession, and incidentally in regard to the patients, which, I think, is quite unjustifiable. The Report does not sufficiently recognise that the condition of our people in Scotland during the last few years, with the amount of unemployment there has been, has been such in many cases that they were more liable than formerly to illness, and that their general condition was very much below par. It is unfortunate that by means of threats and suggestions of surcharges and referees and so on, medical men should have it suggested to them that they should cut down prescribing to the very minimum amount. I have never seen or heard of any investigation to find out if medical men are supplying sufficient good medicines, and the tonics and building up preparations which are often necessary. So long as the medi-
cine is cut down and the cost of prescribing is low, there is evidently no worry as to whether the insured person is getting proper remedies. The whole tendency of the system is to cause the doctor to be afraid to give what, in many cases, would only be adequate for the nature of the case.
I should have liked to deal with housing and slums, but that subject has been referred to by my colleagues on these benches, and also very effectively by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown). I wish to associate myself with all that has been said about the great importance of dealing radically with this subject. There can be no doubt that if we had adequate and proper housing tuberculosis could be swept away in a generation. It is very largely a disease of housing, and it does seem foolish as well as inhuman that we should go on spending enormous sums on public health which would not be necessary if proper housing were provided. It is, of course, a very difficult problem because we are dealing with a state of things which should never have been allowed to grow up. We are paying for the sins of our forefathers. It will be found, if we do tackle housing thoroughly, that the cost of it will be to some extent compensated for by the saving in many public health services. I am glad that the Board of Health are tackling this subject, and I hope they will be encouraged by the expressions of opinion from all quarters of the House to go on with their good work, and remove from Scotland the reproach that it has had some of the worst slums in the British Empire.

Mr. BARR: I should like to revert to the subject of housing. I regret that I have not had time to study the Report, which only came into my hands a few minutes ago. I am very anxious that we should know more as to the position of the subsidy in regard to housing. I do not know whether this is the occasion to press the Minister on that matter, but it bears very directly on the general subject of housing. We have special conditions in Scotland. We have not the same amount of skilled labour, and we have climatic conditions of a particular character and our housing problem has proceeded so far much more slowly than the corresponding programme in England. The consequence is that we lag behind
in the amount we have received, as we as in the proportion of houses supplied. We are due something like eleven-eightieths on this account, and I would put in a plea that the subsidy, so far as Scotland is concerned, should not be reduced in any degree until we have received eleven-eightieths of the amount that has been expended on the full subsidy in England, and that in regard to the impending reduced subsidy in England we should have our full quota and that reference should be made by the Minister to the Act of 1924 in which it was stipulated that the Minister and the Scottish Board of Health should confer with the Minister of Health for England before the reduction takes place.
I would point out some of the effects that follow immediately on the reduction of the subsidy. It tends to an increase of rents, and still further exaggerates the stringency of money. I might refer to my own burgh, where we have now something like 1,314 houses that have been completed or are in progress, and that does not at all meet the abnormal conditions there. We are at a dead stand in the matter. I recognise the kindly feeling, particularly of the Under-Secretary, and doubtless of the Secretary of State for Scotland also, in this matter, but the fact is that we made a special application to get more than our quota, considering the conditions in the burgh of Motherwell, and it was found that, owing to our having certain restrictions, we could have no advance and no loan at reasonable rates. Consequently, our housing is at a standstill in that regard.
I consider that, instead of reducing the subsidy and of bringing these loans to an end, the Minister and the Government should be seeking to provide new ways for securing money on easy terms to go forward with building schemes in constituencies like my own. Another thing which happens when we reduce the subsidy is that there is a tendency to depress the standard of the houses. That has been recognised in England. We have enough houses already that are of a low standard, and the question of subsidies is intimately related to the quality and the standard of houses. It also tends to the increase of rent. I would like to look at this subject from the point of view of the supply of houses. When the Royal Commission made its estimate as to the number of
houses that were required in Scotland, they calculated that, in order to meet the needs of those who are living in overcrowded conditions, and to meet the case of those who are living in uninhabitable horses, 121,000 houses were needed and that, further, to raise somewhat the very low standard, 114,000 further houses should be built, making 235,000 houses in all. I think it was when the Board of Health consulted the local authorities about 1919 that they reported a deficit in Scotland of 131,000 houses, and in the Report for 1924 is was calculated that there was a deficit of 150,000 houses. For the 15 years' programme, with 10,000 houses a year necessary to meet the normal needs, you have 300,000 houses that you should provide in that 15 years—an average of 20,000 a year. This is the only year you have come up to that average. You have this year 21,660 houses, but it is evident that there is still a vast shortage of houses—and of housing of a worthy standard.
I was very much struck by a statement by ex-Bailie Morton, for long Convener of the Housing Committee in Glasgow. He said that the housing shortage was, in his opinion, more acute to-day than when they began building. You reach the same position when you take the subject from the point of view of overcrowding. As has already been pointed out here this afternoon, we do not take the standard of England and of the Registrar-General, which is an average of two per room, because if we did we should realise that more than half the population of Scotland was living in overcrowded conditions. So to save the face of Scotland, so to speak, we make it an average of three per room. Even then it was found by the Boyal Commission that with an average of three per room as the normal, and as not being overcrowded, there were 1,005,000 people living in overcrowded conditions The Medical Officer of Health for Glasgow made a report not long ago to which reference was made by the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart). I was struck with the fact that in the farmed-out houses which were examined there was a population there of 18,000 and 15 per cent. of them were living in overcrowded conditions even at that standard—double the overcrowding that there was before the War. Figures were given by the hon. Member ft r St. Rollox of 12 per cent. in
a certain class of house, with two families living in a house. In another class of house it was 6.4 per cent.—these being far above the lowest grade of house. Taking the one-roomed house, 10 living in a single-apartment house was fairly common. Eleven was common enough, and 12 or 13 was known. I would like to refer to the appalling conclusions that were reached by the Royal Commission on Sexual Offences against Young Persons, where you find the most atrocious and revolting form of sexual immorality attributed to this over-crowding.
I need not go into the subject of slum areas, to which reference has been made. The Minister of Health himself, some time ago, complained that so little progress was being made. I think five improvement schemes are proceeding, and we have to recognise that progress in these slum areas is at present determined by the low economic and depressed conditions of the people. In my own burgh of Motherwell 69 families that were removed from slum conditions into better areas—and it is so difficult to remove them, because they realise that they cannot pay even the modified figures for these new houses—and of these 69 families, 41 since Christmas last have been found already to be in arrears of rate, not for lack of willingness to pay, but because of the economic conditions. Therefore, the whole question of this housing comes back, in part, on Government support, and, on the other hand, to providing a worthy living wage and better economic conditions. This withdrawal or reduction of the subsidy is, in the view of many people, a means of throwing back the housing question on private enterprise once more. I do not think that that is possible, and I do riot think it is desirable.
The Royal Commission on Housing in Scotland reported that even before the War, and before the land taxes of which mention is made in this connection—for they declare the Finance Act had no real effect on the non-provision of houses—private enterprise had failed in the supply of houses on the private enterprise system, that housing must be on a national scale, that it must be done by the national resources, by local authorities undertaking the task. In 1916–27 the National Institute of Surveyors, which is not composed of Socialists at all, but men who have
some regard for private enterprise, declared that much as they desired that private enterprise should go on to complete the work, it was now impossible to provide sufficient housing for the people save by the nation with its national resources. I do not want a return, I say it quite frankly, to the system under which the speculative builder provided houses where it was profitable to build and stopped building when it was unprofitable to build. It is the fundamental and primary duty of the nation to provide worthy houses.
Lastly, I come to the reason which is given for the reduction of the subsidy and the withdrawal of the housing effort on a national basis; and that is, that the nation cannot afford it. The amount that has been spent on the subsidy from 1919 to 1927 is £53,900,000, that is, over the whole of the country.; for Scotland only £6,500,000 has been spent on the subsidy. Cannot we afford more? In Scotland we are spending on strong liquor £27,000,000. In one year we are spending four times as much as has has been spent on housing in Scotland by the Government in eight years. Lately I made a visit, like other hon. Members, to a battleship, and I found an instrument of destruction which was perfect. That battleship cost £9,000,000. One battleship cost more than we have spent on housing from 1919 to 1927, that is on the whole housing subsidy for Scotland. I suppose if we were to carry out to its full the scheme of 1924 we should have to spend something like £1,000,000,000. During the great War the country in the five years spent, not £1,000,000,000,£11,000,000,000. Surely, if in five years this country can afford to spend £11,000,000,000 on the work of human destruction, it can afford to spend one-eleventh part of that sum in 40 years, not on the work of destruction but on the work of reconstruction, the rebuilding and repairing of the old wastes, with better homes for the people and better people for the homes. You say that the country cannot afford it. I recall the words which were used by Captain Scott in the Antarctic when he said that:
Surely, surely a great rich country like ours will see that those who are dependent on us are properly provided for.
Surely a great rich country like ours, as is shown in the revenue returns and
may other ways, can well afford, and should afford, as its first duty the worthy housing of its people.

Sir R. HAMLTON: In the excellent Report we have before us for our consideration to-night there are many matters worthy of serious and grave discussion, but I propose to refer only to one, and that is the question of the Highlands and Islands Medical Service Fund, which does a work of enormous value to the Highlands and Islands of Scotland. With the permission of the Committee may I quote from the Report of the Consultative Council on the Highlands and Islands in order to show the position at present with regard to finance and what it is likely to he in the near future? On page 197 of the Report it say:
The financial disabilities of the Highlands have been intensified since the War by various circumstances, including a further loss of population without a concurrent increase in employment; a tendency towards a decrease in valuation accompanied by a fairly uniform increase in expenditure; the lack of new industries throughout the Highlands as a whole; a falling off in the returns of fishing; and the handicap under which producers in the greater part of the Highlands and Islands suffer owing to the difficulties of transport and the burden of freights.
On the following page it says:
In view of these general considerations we have come to the conclusion that since local resources, both communal and individual, in many parts of the Highlands and Islands are already severely taxed in the provision of the basic medical and nursing services, any new services required in these localities will have to be heavily subsidised from the Fund.
On the following page the Report says:
It is our considered opinion that on the various grounds set out in the preceding paragraph the comprehensive system of services contemplated in the schemes approved for the application of the Highlands and Islands (Medical Service) Fund is urgently required in the interests of health in the Highlands. As to the period that may elapse before the system can be fully built up, we would deprecate a policy which allowed the health services in the Highlands to lag unduly behind the provision made for the prevention of disease in other parts of the country.
That shows generally the opinion of the Consultative Committee as regards the position of the fund. It is of great importance that the services which are rendered by this fund should be kept up and not allowed to fall behind the standard at which they have been kept during
the past years. This fund was instituted in the year 1913, and since that date money values have altered enormously. I do not believe that the annual contribuion to the fund of £42,000 a year has been increased to meet the change in money values, and the fund is expected to do the same work to-day, when costs are infinitely higher than they were then, as it was doing in 1913. As one who has had soma experience as to how this fund is administered, I can say that there is probably no fund in any part of the world which is more economically administered and which does a greater amount of good. It is really astonishing the provision which this fund makes for medical services in the Highlands and Islands. I do not know what we should do without it. The Secretary of State knows that in a short time, unless a further contribution is made, the work of this fund cannot be carried on, and that it would have to come to an end in 18 months. Some provision will have to be made. T have it on the best authority that another £25,000 a year is required.
I ask she Secretary of State whether he can assure us that provisions will be made so that the work of this Fund shall not be allowed in any way to diminish. A branch of the work that has been an outstanding success has been the appointment of consulting surgeons in the out islands. In Shetland, particularly, where a most excellent surgeon was appointed, the result was that operations of importance could be performed in cases which otherwise would have had to be sent South. In out islands like that it is exceedingly difficult to get people in the first place to go into the hospitals, and it increases that difficulty if they have to be sent away on long sea journeys to Aberdeen or Leith or somewhere else in the South. When they can be sent into a hospital in their own county, where their people can come and live near them without any heavy extra expense being incurred, they are more willing to enter a hospital. The arrangement has the result of getting the patient under treatment ear y, and hospitals in the South, whose beds are only too full already, unfortunately, are also relieved. I wish to impress upon the Secretary of State the importance of a continuance of the services of this Fund, and I hope that he will be able to tell us that steps are
being taken so that the work of the Fund shall not be decreased in any way in future.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: There are two matters which I would like to bring to the notice of the Secretary of State. The first is that to which reference has already been made, the subject of venereal disease. In page 106 of the Report of the Board of Health there appears this statement:
It may be said with conviction that those whose professional duties bring them into close acquaintance with these diseases, are, without exception, of the belief that both maladies are widely disseminated throughout the community. Statutory notification gives an accurate indication of the prevalence of scarlet fever, and, read with vital statistics, fairly accurate information as to the number of cases of tuberculosis in the community; there is no similar method of ascertaining the incidence of syphilis and gonorrhea. Again, the death returns state, with a high measure of reliability, the number of deaths from pneumonia or cancer; deaths from syphilis, on the contrary, are rarely certified as due to that disease.
Then on page 117 of the Report, under the heading "The Problem of the Defaulter," there is this statement:
This problem has provided much ground of anxiety and perplexity to local authorities and their officials, and it has been represented that, alike for the general good of the community and with the object of preventing waste of money on curtailed, and so ineffectual, treatment, some further measure of control is necessary.
Further down, the Report states:
It does not seem right that once the mother's condition is diagnosed, she should be at liberty to evade a process of treatment which, if irksome and protracted, is neither acutely painful nor substantially dangerous, and so confer upon her child a high probability of a short life of acute misery, or a longer one of such disability and distress that perhaps early death were preferable.
These statements in themselves are confirmatory of the view that some of us take very seriously, that the Scottish Board of Health is really convinced of the necessity of further legislation.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid that the hon. Member cannot pursue that subject. It is not within the present powers of the Board of Health to do that which he suggests.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: It is one of the great difficulties for myself, that when it
comes to a matter of this kind it seems hardly any good to talk about business at all, if it is only a matter of giving recitations on all these things.

The CHAIRMAN: The rule in these Debates is that the Vote for the Ministry is brought forward, and anything for which the Ministry are responsible is in order as a subject of discussion, and the Ministry can be criticised for what they have done or failed to do. When it comes to a question of legislation and of new powers being asked for, it: is not in order. The hon. Member will see the obvious reason why. If it were in order, discussion would roam over a number of proposals for possible legislation, and the actual default of the Minister would escape observation.

Mr. BUCHANAN: On a point of Order. Let me state what is happening in Scotland in connection with venereal disease and the question of compulsory powers. The Glasgow Corporation and the Edinburgh Corporation both applied for compulsory powers last year, but the Scottish Board of Health opposed the proposal. Is my hon. Friend not entitled to criticise the Secretary for Scotland because of his action in preventing these local authorities from getting compulsory powers under the local legislation that they sought?

The CHAIRMAN: No. The Secretary of State can be criticised as an administrator, but not as a legislator or for failing to be a legislator.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the suggestion, and I will start with the right hon. Gentleman's administration. I want to quote the report of the Convention of Royal Burgs, at which the following resolution was adopted:
That this Convention reiterates the opinion of previous Conventions, that it is in the interests of public health and economy and of the welfare of future generations that some form of notification and ensured treatment of venereal disease should be provided for by legislative enactment.
That Resolution was carried unanimously by the Convention, and Sir Henry Keith proceeded to state the point that I feel it is so necessary to urge on this occasion. What I want to deal with is Sir Henry Keith's deliverance concerning the Scottish Board of Health. He says the attitude of the Board in August, 1922,
was briefly that they were still of the opinion that the first step should be, not notification of venereal diseases but compulsion of persons knowing or having reason to suspect that they are suffering from these diseases to submit themselves to treatment and, having so submitted themselves, to continue under treatment until discharge by the medical officer in charge of the treatment.

The CHAIRMAN: Is not that a matter which involves legislation?

Mr. BUCHANAN: Again, Sir, I wish to put a point of Order in regard to this subject. The compulsory notification of diseases in Scotland does not require legislation in this House. The Secretary of State, under the Public Health Acts, has the power to make any disease notifiable.

The CHAIRMAN: If that is so, then the matter can be discussed.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: The point which I want to bring out is in the statement which I am quoting. Sir Henry Keith goes on:
If we could get that we would be perfectly satisfied.
That, he says, is the official position of the Scottish Board of Health.
I do not think that the English Ministry of Health is quite so far forward. The principle medical officer of health in England has always been a negative quantity in regard to this question, but we in Scotland are further advanced.
He adds that those who have been connected with the subject for more than 12 or 15 years know how futile is the work that is proceeding. As on many other issues, we have evidence here that the Scottish Board of Health would like to do something more but are being held back by the English Ministry of Health. The Liverpol Bill reached the Second Reading stage without any challenge, but, thereafter, when the Edinburgh Bill came up for discussion exception was taken to it, the Whips were put on against it and the Measure was defeated.

Mr. BROWN: The Whips were not put on against it.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: In any case the instigation of the Government on representations from the Secretary of State "was against the Bill. The Scottish Board
of Health has issued an excellent compendium of information on the various activities of the Department but, in regard to this particular issue which is so important, with regard to this terrible disease, the Board puts in veiled language evidence that they would like to do something better but that they are being held back from going further forward on account of the position of the English Ministry of Health. That is a situation which once more proves the futility of trying to do anything in this connection at all. It may be a humorous matter to the Lord Advocate, who has been enjoying himself at Longforgan, but we here are not professionally engaged. We are only endeavouring to serve our constituencies and the country. On page 207 of the report, reference is made to a serious development in connection with infectious diseases. It is in regard to the case of one of the milch cows in a dairy close to Dundee and it is the second case of the kind affecting a considerable number of people. A tribute is paid in the report to the promptitude with which these cases were handled. This reference is as follows:
These outbreaks provide a signal demonstration that the provisions in the Milk and Dairies Act have not yet proved to be a practical means for avoiding outbreaks of infectious disease due to milk. If such outbreaks continue to occur, and if the existing system cannot prevent them, it will be necessary to devise other measures for the prevention of outbreaks of disease.
When its. Report shows such serious circumstancs and when the Board of Health come down to a recognition of the fact that the real failure is in the Act as it stands then, logically, we ought to expect the representatives of the Scottish Board of Health to do something more than administer the Act which they admit fails to meet the case.

The CHAIRMAN rose—

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR: I have got in all I want to say at the moment.

Sir A. SINCLAIR: In view of the fact that many other Members wish to speak I shall confine myself to two points. The general position of the medical service in the Highlands and Islands has been adequately dealt with by the hon. Member for Orkney and
Shetland (Sir R. Hamilton) but I wish to draw attention to the urgency of the situation there and I would quote a little further from the Report:
In particular we could not view with equanimity any negative policy which allowed the gap between the standard of service in the Highlands and the Lowlands to be widened—a process which seems to us indeed to be actually going on at present in certain branches of public health work.
At present, therefore, the service in the Highlands is actually getting worse than the service in the Lowlands and I therefore appeal to the Under-Secretary to make it quite clear, not only that the service is going to be kept up to the pitch which it has now reached but that in the branches of public health work to which reference is made in the Report, there will be a definite and immediate effort to make up the leeway in the Highland areas. On the following page the Board of Health say:
For the financial reasons explained in recent reports, activity during 1927 has been confined almost entirely to the maintenance of the services in being before the beginning of the year.
Apparently there has been none of the expansion which ought to be made in these services. There was one very important point in the Report of the Board of Health for 1925 to which no reference has been made since. It is a matter of particular importance to many parts of the Highlands, namely, the question of communication. The Report for 1925 stated:
The need for an extension of telephone services in the Highlands and Islands is becoming clearer as the medical and allied services develop. It is now apparent … that the greatest good cannot he secured from hospital or other special services unless the doctors' and nurses' houses, the general hospital, the infectious diseases hospital, the sanatorium and the headquarters of the local authorities and the medical officer of health, are linked together by telephone. …The problem is even more acute in the case of some of the smaller islands, which have no means of communication with their neighbours except by boat, and then only when weather conditions permit.
I have two of these islands in my constituency and I have, before now, approached the Board of Health in regard to the fairly large island of Stroma asking if we could not have a wireless apparatus similar to that which has been tried out in the Orkney and Shetland
Islands. I would like to know if that proposal has been receiving or will receive consideration? There is a real need, on grounds mainly of health, for improving the communications between the island of Stroma and the mainland.
I should like also briefly to emphasise what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for East Edinburgh (Dr. Shiels) about harrying the doctors for over-prescribing. There have been cases in. my constituency of well-known and very much respected doctors who are accused of over-prescribing—most careful men, who hold important public positions in the county, and of whom such an accusation cannot for one moment be entertained by those who know them; and I hope that that will not be resorted to in the future. I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross and Cromarty (Mr. Macpherson) referring to the most important and valuable work which is being done by the Northern Infirmary in Inverness, but I must enter one caveat about it. I do not in the least wish to detract from the most valuable work of that hospital within a very large radius, but that radius does not reach to Caithness. There we have two admirable hospitals, one the Bignold Hospital in Wick and the other the Dunbar Hospital in Thurso, and great efforts are being made by the local people to maintain and improve the equipment of those hospitals. I hope we may have an assurance to-night from my hon. and gallant Friend that these efforts are being recognised by the Board of Health and that they are prepared to support us in the efforts which we are making there, at Wick and Thurso, and in particular that we shall be able to obtain the much needed services of a surgeon. For really serious, critical cases Inverness is too far off, and in other cases people prefer to go to Edinburgh and Glasgow, where they have many more friends and better accommodation.
I now come to the second point. After all, the shelter of the people and their environment is a fundamental factor in the problem of health, and the fringe of the rural housing question in the Highlands of Scotland has scarcely been touched by the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. The medical officer of health for Argyllshire, in a recent report, says that the chief causes of ill health are climate and unsatisfactory housing and that
nothing can be done short of rebuilding half the houses on different sites. The only thing that has been done by the Government has been the passing of the Housing (Rural Workers) Act. What progress has been made? Unfortunately it is clear from the Report of the Board of Health that very little progress has been made under that Act. Actually improvements covering only 62 houses have been completed, and grants amounting to only £4,381 have been paid. As regards schemes in contemplation and grants promised, they amount to only £26,000 or less in respect of some 270 houses to be improved, whereas we know from the Reports of the Board itself that the short age of rural houses in Scotland amounts to something like 21,000. These 270 houses, therefore, barely touch the fringe of the question.
Some of my hon. Friends have impressed upon the Government the fact that there is an intolerable burden on the local ratepayers in this connection. They have to pay half the charges on the grants to bear the whole of the loan liabilities and the whole of the administrative expenses of the scheme. This, in a county like Sutherland, where a penny rate raises only £400, means that the Act is unworkable, and Sutherland is one of those many authorities who are unable, admittedly, to put the Act into operation. For the majority of the ratepayers there, it means only additional rates. How many authorities are not working the Act at the present time, and what do the Government propose to do for the people in those cases, whose need is as urgent as that of people in any other part of the country? Another defect of the Act is that it only touches the actual rural workers and does not cover postmasters, tailors, and other people whose work is essential to the social and economic life of the rural communities, but who cannot come under the Wheatley Act and have not the resources to break down their little houses, which have some good walls left, and to start afresh building new houses, as they would have to do to qualify for subsidy under the Wheatley or Chamberlain Acts. They want really to improve their houses, yet because they are not actually agricultural labourers they are not able to obtain a subsidy under this Act.
Finally, on this question of housing, one of the most urgent cases of all in the rural districts is that of the men who were settled on the land by the Board of Agriculture, under their administration, immediately after the war, almost entirely ex-service men. They were given loans of about £1,000, for which they got houses and steading, which are nothing but temporary huts and which are already letting in the water and are useless as shelters. At present they are nothing short of death traps, but within 20 or 30 years they will have disappeared entirely, and in the meantime their occupiers have this obligation of the thousand pounds. They have no remedy against the Board of Agriculture, which says that it has finished with them, having supplied them with the houses and given them the loans. Therefore, the only people to whom they can look are the Board of Health, and I do appeal to the hon. and gallant Member to consider the case of these men. I was speaking to one list Autumn, a Mr. Sutherland, who has a holding in the parish of Reay. He told me that he was as comfortable in the mine craters of St. Eloi, on the Belgian war front, as in the conditions in which he found himself in his house at Reay. In wet weather, he said, he could not get I is children clean, and they were going about ankle-deep in-mud. The water streamed in, and, as a matter of fact, he is doing the only thing he can do and that is to emigrate. He is going away and leaving the hut, and that is the only course which confronts scores of these men, many of them in my own constituency. I would ask my hon. and gallant Friend to consider this problem. It is one of the most urgent problems in the rural districts at the present time and almost entirely affects ex-service men.

Mr. STEPHEN: There are two points I wish to raise in connection with this Report. I put a question to the Secretary of State for Scotland as to the number of houses inhabited and certified as unfit for human habitation in Glasgow in 1928, and he informed me that the number was 3,007. He also informed me that the number of houses in slum clearance schemes built and occupied was 2,716. When I got that answer, I was surprised because in 1922 there were about 13,000 houses inhabited and certi-
fied as unfit for human habitation in Glasgow, and, as far as I can make out from inquiries, there have been nothing like 10,000 houses demolished, as would be the case under slum clearance schemes. I wonder whether this reduction to 3,000 is partly due to the fact that there has been a lower state of certification, and that houses that were formerly regarded as unfit for human habitation have tended to become regarded as fit for habitation. I also wish to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that the 1924 Act is evidently beginning very largely to replace the 1925 Act as the Act that is effective in providing houses. I mention that because I have here a leaflet which has been circulated in my Division by the Unionist Association, entitled "The Harvest of Houses." It points out that in 1924, Socialist year, the number of houses built was 9,537: in 1925, Unionist year, the number of houses built was 10,053; in 1926, Unionist year, 14,286 houses: and in 1927, Unionist year, 22,156 houses. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] Hon. Gentlemen cheer, but the leaflet is a thousand wrong with regard to 1927, according to this Report.

Major ELLIOT: I challenge that: it is untrue.

Mr. STEPHEN: The figure to which I was referring in the report, gives the total of completed houses for the year as 21,660, whereas in the leaflet it is 22,156.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member does not mind my pointing out that there are other houses built in Scotland than those built under State-assisted schemes. He must not assume that other people do not build houses except with the assistance of the State.

Mr. STEPHEN: That may be, but I am not so much concerned with the actual figures, as to point out the fact that evidently the Conservative Government require a Socialist Act in order to enable the houses to be built. The subsidy comes up for review in October. On several occasions I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland questions regarding the amount of subsidy which has been paid in Scotland, and from the figures I have got of the amounts paid in Glasgow and some of the big English
cities I notice that Glasgow is still a good way behind these other cities. I want to warn the Secretary of State, that we expect when this review takes place, that he will see that Scotland gets its due proportion of this expenditure. I think we are entitled to more proportionately because it has been generally admitted that the Scottish housing problem is ever so much worse than the English, and I do hope the Secretary of State will not let Scotland down and will allow us to retain the full subsidy. I must confess that I have not very much confidence in him, but I hope the warning we are giving him may produce something better in the future than we have had in the past.
I also want to complain about the paragraph on page 252 of the Report, already referred to, dealing with the certification of people by doctors under the National Health Insurance Scheme. I have previously challenged the Secretary of State regarding the implied reflection in those words, because they suggest that doctors in Scotland are not acting as professional men with the responsibilities which they undertake when they become doctors. I protest very strongly against people who themselves are living in comfortable circumstances, with every opportunity to maintain themselves in health and strength, writing on the assumption that doctors are not doing their duty and are allowing people to draw sick benefit who are not entitled to it. From the experience of our friends who have had to take advantage of national health insurance, we know that so far from its being easy to get a certificate of ill health the tendency is to send people back to work when they are unfit to go. It is quite obvious that this paragraph was written to try to terrorise the more timid members of the profession into sending people back to work before they are fit to return, or to keep them from giving certificates to members of the working class who through being unemployed and in consequence unable to get proper food, have tended to get into an unhealthy condition.
There is is one other matter I wish to mention. On page 331 there is a similar paragraph about parish councils not doing their duty. It is pointed out there:
In most of the larger industrial parishes it is found that a considerable number, not a large percentage, but sufficient to call for comment, of unemployed persons have been continuously chargeable, or chargeable with only small breaks for long periods. Such cases should be specially and thoroughly considered by parish councils. It is noteworthy that the great majority of unemployed persons are now able to obtain spells of work periodically, and complete failure to do so over long periods would seem to justify a suspicion that reasonable efforts to find employment have not been made.
Anyone who has had experience of the parish councils in Scotland knows that they are face to face with the fact that there is so much unemployment and so many burdens thrown upon the local authorities that there is a tendency for ever-increasing rates, and as a consequence the parish councils have been very stringent with regard to the granting of relief. Nearly every one of those parish councils has a majority of Conservative representatives, and we ail know that Conservatives are not very generous in dealing with the working classes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There is no question about that. On this matter the Conservative viewpoint is that the whole business is very unfortunate, but they say that this is the best of all possible worlds and people must do their best in it. The administration of the Poor Law by those parish councils is very stringent, and consequently the only result of the policy adopted by the Scottish Board of Health is to make those councils absolutely callous with regard to the administration of poor relief. The other part of the paragraph I have quoted reads:
There appears to be an increasing tendency to make application for relief as soon as employment ceases, and it is thought that some parish councils are inclined to admit such applicants too readily to relief.
I wonder what the compiler of the Report was thinking about when he wrote that sentence. It is evident that the poor wages paid to these people, and the fact that employment is so casual, were overlooked. Long spells of idleness on the part of one member of the family or another contribute towards placing these people in a very difficult position. The Report goes on to state that the parish councils are far too generous in dealing with these people, but hon. Members cannot give a single example of such generosity, and if they could have found
one it would most certainly have been printed in the Report in black type. The Report goes on to say:
White the difficulties of the situation from the point of view of the parish councils are realised, it is nevertheless unfortunate that the impression should be created that Poor Law relief is available as soon as work ceases, and parish councils should endeavour to administer their duty by making it clear to the applicant that the primary responsibility for providing for their maintenance rests with themselves.
It is true that the primary responsibility for maintenance rests with themselves, but when one Government after another finds itself unable to do anything material to solve the problem of unemployment; when on Government after another has found itself baffled by the industrial circurnstances to which those people who won the war and carried the country through in that great struggle are subjected to-day—many of them are ex-service men—all the Government can do to meet such a situation is to tell them that the primary responsibility for providing for their maintenance rests with themselves. I think it is intolerable that such paragraphs should come into this Report. I am quite willing to admit that every year, generally speaking, the Report seems to show some measure of improvement, and I think it is a great pity that a Report which might have been so much more valuable is really spoiled by inhuman, callous sentences such as these.
No one on this side of the House wants to make any plea for people who are themselves responsible for the conditions under which they are, but everyone knows that, in Glasgow and in other towns in Scotland, unemployment has been such a fearful scourge that the people there are in the most distressed circumstances, and the parish councils have been face to face with a very difficult problem. They have tried to meet it, and I am quite confident that, if they have erred, it has always been on the side of severity. They have, however, a very difficult problem to face, and I think that the Scottish Board of Health should not be complaining that these parish councils have been too generous. They know that it is not true, and it is no use trying to make the conditions of people who are in the most distressed circumstances even worse than they are. It is a disgrace to the Conservative party, it is a disgrace to any party, that there should be this attempt,
in the admittedly difficult circumstances of the country, to increase the hardship of the conditions of the people in the poorer section of society. It would be far more creditable if the Government, viewing the position of the parish councils, were to come to their relief more generously than they ever have done, instead of trying to take it out of the stomachs of the men, women and children who have had to suffer so hardly, and have had to bear a big part of the sacrifices involved in those years of hardship imposed by the industrial crisis in this country.

The CHAIRMAN: Major Elliot.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wanted to move a reduction of the Vote by £100, but I do not want to intervene now if I can get an opportunity for a minute later on.

The CHAIRMAN: That will depend on the Secretary to the Board of Health. If he consumes the 28 minutes that are available, the hon. Member will not have the opportunity.

Major ELLIOT: I have no objection; the hon. Member can move his reduction now if he so desires.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I beg to move to reduce the Vote by £100.
I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman for his never-failing courtesy. I move this reduction formally, as I know that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has to reply.

Major ELLIOT: I thought it only fair to allow hon. Members opposite the opportunity of carrying into the Division Lobby the heat which they seem to have generated in the last few minutes. A refreshing breath of controversy blew through our discussions in the closing remarks of the hon. Member for Camlachie (Mr. Stephen), a breath of controversy which, perhaps, has receded too far from some of our discussions in the past few years, and which was reminiscent of the glorious days when hon. Members came down from the North brandishing a great number of flags and other implements, with the object of sweeping away the effete civilisation which had set itself up here on the banks of the Thames. I remember reading a review recently in that well-conducted paper "Forward,"
saying that, alas, that gallant expeditionary force suffered the fate of another expeditionary force, a second Flodden—

The CHAIRMAN: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting a little wide of his own Vote.

Major ELLIOT: I would only point out that a reduction has been moved. It has not been moved by the hon. Member who introduced the subject, and it has been moved at a very late stage of the proceedings. [Interruption.] I make no objection. I was merely indicating to the Chairman the reasons that led me to point out that a reduction was being moved. However, I think we may leave the hon. Member's remarks, and we may leave the hon. Member who spoke last to enjoy that extraordinary feeling of self-righteousness which he seems to revel in more than almost any other Member of the Committee and assure him that we on this side do not believe it is a service to the workers of the country to hide facts from them. There is no one who resents more the undoubted cases of undue drawing of relief by one member of the community or another than they do.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman give us one case where it happens? What parish council does it?

Major ELLIOT: It is not possible to go into details and publish the tables of figures of people having drawn relief for very long periods which it is possible for us to quote. I do not desire to make Scottish local government a sterile controversy as to whether or not certain particular individuals have drawn an undue amount of relief. We know that in fact—and hon. Members opposite complain of it as much as anyone—there is a tendency in modern life for the principle of doles and not work to be ingrained in any of us. In any of us who are subject to the temptations there is a tendency to yield to them, and hon. Members opposite know that as well as I do and have complained of it to me. [Interruption.] The hon. Member will excuse me for not entering into a discussion with him. Those who have remained throughout the discussion are entitled to have their questions answered. The hon. Member for Camlachie made a further remark that I should like to deal
with. He spoke of the reflections and attacks on the medical profession contained in this Report. The spectacle of the hon. Member for Camlachie defending the medical profession against the attacks of Sir Leslie MacKenzie is one we may well leave to the delighted laughter of the medical profession of Scotland.
When the discussion was introduced the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) raised a number of questions of which he had the courtesy to give me notice in advance, and I must answer them as far as that is possible. He asked, with regard to the experience of societies in dealing with this high benefit rate, which is causing disquietude among approved societies and those who are responsible for their supervision, was there a difference in experience between one society and another? It would be incorrect to say there is any difference between one society and another, save that there is a difference between societies which deal with different areas. Societies in rural areas have not the same experience as societies in urban industrial areas or areas where this heavy sickness claim is concentrated. In rural areas one does not find the same weight of expenditure. We cannot attribute it, however, to a difference of administration between one society and another. Further, he raised certain questions regarding the Pensions Act, and notably the case of the wives of old age pensioners between 65 and 70. He will realise, I am sure, that this hinges on the fact that these are contributory insurance Acts and that benefits are paid in return for premiums. It is difficult and well-nigh impossible, without falsifying the whole structure of the Act, to make an alteration which will bring within the ambit of the Act those on behalf of whom no premium has been paid.
In general, while it is necessary to deal as sympathetically as possible with hard cases, yet wherever you draw the line hard cases will be met. Wherever you shut out persons and bring in persons, wherever you draw the line between these two—you are bound to find a feeling of hardship. He asks whether there were cases of anomalies which might be dealt with administratively without any legislative change. I do not think that the Act has been running long enough for any
striking cases of anomalies to arise which could be remedied by administrative action. Wherever there may be cases that he or other Members of the House may bring to my right hon. Friend or myself, we shall try our utmost to examine them and see whether they are cases which can be remedied by administrative action or by subsequent legislation. But the Act must remain a Pension Act giving benefit in return for premiums paid. We have to remember that as the Act continues to work a greater proportion of the insured population will be brought within it, and these particular cases, the hard cases to which reference has been made, will by the nature of things become less.
He raises one or two particular points such as the establishment of the age of people and in particular of the establishment of age with regard to Irish claims. With regard to that, the Board do their utmost not to dismiss lightly the claim of a person of Irish birth, because we know it is impossible for such a person of present pensionable age to produce any regitration of the fact that he was born in such and such a year. As the hon. Member knows, correspondence has frequently taken place for weeks and indeed for months at a time with parish priests or with people of authority in Northern and Southern Ireland where the Boa-d has made every effort to obtain some evidence of age, either through marriage or through another claimant born previously or subsequently, or even by the recollection of unusual events. There is a ease in the Board of Health report which may have been brought to the notice of the hon. Member, where an old man was given a pension although the only ability to establish dates was that he remembered threepenny pieces coming into circulation while he was attending school.

Mr. HARDIE: Do not forget that it was the English people who made the threepenny bit.

Major ELLIOT: We were talking of whether people remembered things clearly when the question of registration did not apply. He raised a point of some difficulty, which has required more consideration than one would like, as to whether there had been any evidence of men having been dismissed from employment on having reached the age of 65
because a pension was available at that time. I do not think that we can say as a Board that we have had any evidence brought to us to indicate that such dismissals were taking place or had been taking place, but, undoubtedly, companies and others, considering that their employes had reached pensionable age, it may be are more apt to bring that age to 65, because of the existence of a pension, than they would have been otherwise. That is one of the difficulties which is inevitable in the introduction of a pension scheme, but, undoubtedly, it is not a matter which can be met by legislation. It is a matter for supervision, for bringing up hard cases and for reviewing those cases, where necessary, and making sure that in this section of society an Act which was intended to bring a benefit does not, in fact, make the position of certain individuals worse.

Mr. MAXTON: Why do you not caution the employers?

Major ELLIOT: We do that when we find that over a long-continued period some transgression has been taking place, but I do not think the hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) would suggest that the necessity to caution and to give good advice is a thing which needed bringing to the notice of any Scottish Board.

Mr. MAXTON: I make the very definite assertion that while in your report you take steps to warn the parish councils that they must not be too generous to the poor people, you do not take any steps to warn the employers against the meanness of reducing the wages of their workers when they reach the age of 65.

Major ELLIOT: The hon. Member cannot have done us the honour of listening to the discussion which has been proceeding between my hon. Friend the Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown) and myself. The question which the hon. Member for Bridgeton raises was not mentioned at all. The question which I was discussing with my hon. Friend was the question of the termination of employment at 65, and the hon. Member for Bridgeton will admit that as a policy that has been frequently advanced from his side of the House as a panacea for certain of our difficulties in the coal mines. The hon. Member must not raise some totally different question and then
resent my comments on the question which he actually raises. We are now discussing the question of dismissals on the account of a man reaching the age of 65 where he becomes a beneficiary under the Pensions Act. In fact there is a warning in the Report that the Pensions Act may produce a certain difficulty for some of the pensionable population, instead of benefit. The preliminary warning is actually given in the Report, but no definite statement is made because no definite action had so far been brought to our notice. There is the preliminary warning that hard cases may arise.

Mr. MAXTON: You know that they have arisen.

Major ELLIOT: The other point which my hon. Friend the Member for Leith raised was in reference to the ex-service men. He asked about the position of the disabled ex-service man in regard to the pensions scheme. The Regulations lay down that:
On discharge from the Forces, a man resumes his right to all the ordinary benefits in respect of health insurance, except that in the case of a man who receives a pension in respect of disablement in the highest degree, or an alternative pension, or an allowance in place thereof, on account of incapacity due to service in the late War, the rate of sickness or disablement benefit is reduced, as explained in K. above.
That is a provision against the drawing of a double pension. The man who is in receipt of a whole-time pension when he is out of the Forces is out of insurance, but if he enters insurable occupation and works himself into insurance again then he is able to be an insured person. When he is out of the Forces and is drawing a full-time disablement pension only, then he is not eligible for the full-time benefit because he is already drawing one full-time pension and it is not the intention of the Government in any case that a person should draw from two alternative sources.
The hon. Member also dealt with the question of housing. This was also dealt with by several other hon. Members and the hon. Member will excuse me if I deal with it only in a very general fashion. The hon. Member said—as did other hon. Members, and notably the hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. Stewart), who spoke with his accustomed
earnestness and knowledge on this subject—that the problem of the slums remained one of the gravest problems with which Scotland was faced. The hon. Member for Leith raised the question particularly of the standard which was being adopted and he asked how many houses would be needed and what were our standards. The number of houses needed was put down by the Board of Health at 10,000 per annum, and in doing so it did take into account wastage and the houses needed for the increase in the population. I agree that the number of houses needed depends very largely on the standards which one lays down. We have found time and time again that he standards of one generation are regarded as wholly unsuitable by the next.
At the present time it is quite true that we might be able to classify a much larger number of houses in Scotland as unfit for habitation, but let us deal with first things first. There are many houses in Scotland that not only we regard as unfit for habitation, but our fathers and grandfathers, and I think sometimes the very savages in the fields, would have classified as unfit. Those are the houses that we want to get rid of, in the first place, and until we make a beginning with them it is useless to reclassify houses and say no houses are satisfactory unless there are three rooms with bath room, water closet, and other modern conveniences.
We have clone our utmost to impress on the local authorities who were building houses that people at present are suffering acutely not only from unsatisfactory houses, but from overcrowding. The hon. Member for St. Rallox raised the question of two-roomed houses. That was a description of the Glasgow scheme, and not a statement of policy by the Board itself. It was an Appendix describing the Glasgow scheme. It was, I thought, clear it was a statement of the Glasgow position and not the enunciation of a policy by the Scottish Board of Health. The hon. Member commented on the fact that there was a large proportion of two-roomed houses allowed. It is quite true, but the lion. Member himself supplied the answer to that in his next paragraph, where he said that of the 2,000 families inspected a large percentage were living over two families in a house. You have two
families living in a room in a two-roomed house, but if you can separate them and see that each family has two rooms, separate water closet and bath room, you make a tremendous advance in the life of the people, and we have no right to say that nobody shall have any new house of his own at all unless it is a three-roomed house with bath room, scullery and other offices. We are dealing with abnormal circumstances, and we have to permit anything and everything which will raise the standard of housing in that city. I would permit one-roomed houses if necessay to do away with the desperate and inhuman overcrowding which is going on in some parts of Glasgow to-day.
Let me now come to the question of the subsidy. We have been asked what the position is with regard to it. The Secretary of State has explained to the local authorities that he has secured a two years extension over that which was given in England. A cut took place in the English housing subsidy. No cut took place in the Scottish housing subsidy, and we have the assurance that no reduction is to be made until the 31st of March. We can trust the Secretary of State to put the case for Scotland at least as forcible as he did last year.

Mr. MAXTON: We cannot do anything of the sort.

Major ELLIOT: The majority of the Committee can and has done so. The case for Scotland has been sympathetically considered in the past and will be sympathetically considered in the future.

Mr. MAXTON: Why cannot you make an announcement of policy now and give the local authorities a chance?

Major ELLIOT: I remember what was done by the Opposition when an hon. colleague of mine made an announcement of Government policy. I remember how much of the time of the House was taken up in attempting to get a withdrawal; and Under-Secretaries are much more chary of making announcements now. Finally the right hon. bomber for Ross and Cromarty referred to the subsidy for the Highlands and Islands Medical Services. There again the subsidy will have to be reconsidered. It is now £42,000 a year, but the Fund is drawing on its unexpended balances to make up an expenditure of £62,000 a year. The Secre-
tary of State will again approach the Treasury, and I have no doubt that we shall succeed in getting a substantial increase in the statutory rate of that subsidy. We cannot in every case simply approach the Treasury for an increase in every one of our grants. We must look to every chance of saving money where we can. The need is greatest in special areas, but in all these things the case of Scotland is the case of one portion of the United Kingdom, not the whole.

Mr. HARDIE: It is the whole.

Major ELLIOT: The Report of the Scottish Board of Health is a review of the work of local authorities. It points out many directions in which that work needs to be expanded and in which it could be greatly advantaged by a better system of co-operation among the local authorities. All these things are being brought up and considered and dealt with in the great financial Measures now before Parliament. We are bringing forward positive schemes dealing with the difficulties in which local authorities find themselves, and I am proud to belong to a Government which has found it possible to tackle this great problem, which I have seen more than one Government try to tackle and fail.

Mr. WESTWOOD: I feel sure the Committee will be interested by the caution exhibited by the Under-Secretary of State—

It being Eleven of the Clock, the CHAIRMAN left the Chair to make his Report to the House.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

RATING AND VALUATION (APPORTIONMENT) [MONEY].

Resolution reported,
That it is expedient that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses incurred the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the execution of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments, for the distinction in valuation lists of the classes of hereditaments to be affected, and the apportionment in valuation lists of the net annual values of such hereditaments according to the extent of the user thereof for various purposes.

Resolution read a Second time.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Mr. MACPHERSON: (seated and covered): On a point of Order. Owing to the noise in the House Members around me have not heard on what Question we are about to divide.

Mr. SPEAKER: The Question is, "That this House doth agree with the Committee in the said Resolution."

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 171; Noes, 86.

Division No. 160.]
AYES.
[11.4 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel
Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Dixon, Captain Rt. Hon. Herbert


Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.
Eden, Captain Anthony


Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l)
Brown, Brig. Gen.H.C.(Berks. Newb'y)
Edmondson, Major A. J,


Allen, Sir J. Sandeman
Burman. J. B.
Elliot, Major Walter E.


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward
Ellis, R. G.


Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. w.
Campbell, E. T.
England, Colonel A.


Astor, Maj. Hn.John J.(Kent, Dover)
Carver, Major W. H.
Erskine, Lord (Somerset,Weston-s,-M.)


Atkinson, C.
Chapman, Sir S.
Everard, W. Lindsay


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.


Balfour, George (Hampitead)
Cockerill, Brig-General Sir George
Fielden, E. B.


Bainiel, Lord
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Ford, Sir P. J.


Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell
Cooper, A. Duff
Foxcroft, Captain C. T.


Barclay-Harvey C. M.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fraser, Captain Ian


Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H,
Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.
Fremantle. Lieut.-Colonel Francls E.


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Ganzoni, Sir John


Bennett, A. J.
Crooke, J. Smedley (Derltend)
Gates, Percy


Bentinck, Lo'd Henry Cavendish-
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Llndsey.Galnsbro)
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John


Berry, Sir George
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Gower, Sir Robert


Bethel, A.
Dalkeith, Earl of
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.


Birchall. Major J. Dearman
Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)
Greene, W. P. Crawford


Bourne, Captain Robert Croft
Davits, Ma|. Geo. F.(Somerest,Yeovll)
Grotrian, H. Brent


Bowyer. Captain G. E. W.
Davies, Dr. Vernon
Guinness, Rt. Hon. Walter E.


Brass, Captain W.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hacking. Douglas H.


Briggs, J. Harold
Dean, Arthur Wellesley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Brittain, sir Harry
Dixey, A. C.
Hamilton, Sir George


Hammersley, S. S.
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.
Savery, S. S.


Harrison, G. J. C.
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.
Smith-Carington, Neville W.


Hartington, Marquess of
Merriman, Sir F. Boyd
Smithers, Waldron


Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M,
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Sprot, Sir Alexander


Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)
Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.


Heneage, Lieut.-Col. Arthur P.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L, (Exeter)
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Henn, Sir Sydney H
Oakley, T.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Hugh
Templeton, W. P.


Hills, Major John Waller
Pennefather, Sir John
Thom, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)


Hilton, Cecil
Penny, Frederick George
Thomson, F. C. [Aberdeen, South)


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Titchfield, Major the Marquess of


Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Wallace, Captain D. E.


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Power, Sir John Cecil
Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L.(Kingston-on-Hull)


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney, N.)
Preston, William
Warrender, Sir Victor


Hurd, Percy A.
Price, Major C. W. M.
Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)


Iliffe, Sir Edward M.
Radford, E. A.
Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, Sir Walter
Watts, Sir Thomas


Jephcott, A. R.
Ramsden, E.
Wayland, Sir William A.


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Remer, J. R.
Wells, S. R.


Kindersley, Major Guy M.
Rentoul, G. S.
Williams, Com- C. (Devon, Torquay)


King, Commodore Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y. Cn'ts'y)
Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)


Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey
Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretlord)
Wilson, Sir C. H. (Leeds, Central)


Long, Major Eric
Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)


Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wolmer, viscount


Lumley, L. R.
Salmon, Major I.
Womersley, W. J.


Lynn, Sir R. J.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Macintyre, Ian
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, futney)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


McLean, Majer A,
Sandeman, N. Stewart
Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)


Macmillan, Captain H.
Sanders, Sir Robert A.



Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Sanderson, Sir Frank
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sandon, Lord
Major Sir William Cope and Captain Margesson.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)
Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)
Potts, John S.


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, H. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Ammon, Charles George
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Baker, Walter
Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)
Ritson, J.


Barr, J.
Hutchison, Sir Robert (Montrese)
Saklatvala, Shapurji


Batey, Joseph
Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)
Scrymgeour, E.


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Scurr, John


Bromley, J.
Kelly, W. T.
Shiels, Dr. Drummond


Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Kennedy, T.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)


Buchanan. G.
Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.
Smith, Rennle (Penlstone)


Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel
Lansbury, George
snell. Harry


Charleton, H. C.
Lawrence, Susan
Stamford, T. W.


Compton, Joseph
Lawson, John James
Stephen, Campbell


Connolly, M.
Livingstone, A. M.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Lowth, T.
Strause, E. A.


Crawturd, H. E.
Lunn. William
Sutton. J, E.


Dalton, Hugh
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)
Tinker, John Joseph


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mackinder, W.
Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)


Day, Harry
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow Govan)
Wellock, Wilfred


Dunnico, H.
MacNeill-Weir, L.
Westwood, J.


Gillett, George M.
Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)
Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham)


Greenall, T.
Maxton, James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Coine)
Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Groves, T.
Montague, Frederick
Windsor, Walter


Grundy, T. W.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, M.)
Wright, W.


Hall, F. (York., W.R., Normanton)
Maylor, T. E.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Owen, Major G.



Hardie, George D.
Palin, John Henry
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Paling, W.
Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Whiteley.


Hayes, John Henry
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that there shall be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament any expenses incurred by the Commissioners of Inland Revenue in the execution of any Act of the present Session to make provision, with a view to the grant of relief from rates in respect of certain classes of hereditaments, for the distinction in valuation lists of the classes of hereditaments to be affected, and the apportionment in valuation lists of the net annual values of such hereditaments according to the extent of the user thereof for various purposes.

WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS OF SCOTLAND.

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Contract, dated the 2nd and 11th days of April, 1928, between the Postmaster-General and David MacBrayne, Limited, for the maintenance of certain cargo and passenger sea services in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails by certain of the vessels so employed.—[Sir G. Hennessy.]

Mr. HARDIE: Can we be assured that two of the gentlemen concerned, Sir Herbert Cayzer and Captain Fanshawe, have no interests in shipping affairs?

Mr. SPEAKER: That point arises on a separate Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Should I be in order in objecting to this Motion, to the general Motion altogether?

Mr. SPEAKER: It cannot be taken after eleven o'clock if objection is taken.

Sir J. GILMOUR: Might I appeal to the hon. Member and explain that this is a matter that Scottish Members generally wish to see carried through? It would be very unfortunate if it were held up at this stage. I am accepting an Amendment that is being moved by another hon. Member.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I do not wish to delay the matter, but I want to ask a few questions, and I am certain that they cannot be answered without something in the nature of a discussion. I regret the necessity, but I have some necessary questions on the constitution of the Committee. I have no objection to the original Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects, we cannot proceed with the Motion.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to object to the names. That is my only objection.

Mr. MacKENZIE LIVINGSTONE: I beg to move, in line 4, after the word "Limited," to insert the words:
and to consider any alternative scheme whereby more adequate provision could be made.

Mr. E. BROWN: I beg to second the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The following Motion also stood upon the Order Paper:

"That the Committee do consist of Eleven Members:

That Mr. Barr, Major Sir Herbert Cayzer, Captain Fanshawe, Sir Robert Hamilton,
Mr. Johnston, Mr. Thomas Kennedy, Major MacAndrew, Major Alan - McLean, Mr. R. W. Smith, Major Steel, and Mr. Roy Wilson be nominated Members of the Committee:

That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records:

That Three be the quorum."—[Sir Hennessy.]

Mr. JOHNSTON: I log to move, in line 13, at end, to add the words
That the Committee have the power to travel to and hold sitting; in Glasgow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. May I put it to you, Sir, that this Amendment ought to come later on, and that you have to put the next part of the Motion.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite right.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider and report upon the Contract, dated the 2nd and 11th days of April, 1928, between the Postmaster-General and David MacBrayne, Ltd., and to consider any alternative scheme whereby more adequate provision could be made for the maintenance of certain cargo and passenger sea set's-ices in the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland, and for the conveyance of mails by certain of the vessels so employed.

Mr. BUCHANAN: I wish to object now to the names.

Mr. SPEAKER: Then that part of the Motion will have to stand over.

The remaining Order, were read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Commander Eyres Monsell.]

Adjourned accordingly at Nineteen minutes after Eleven o'Clock.